“A Seat at the Table”

_{Eric Hedin

October 10, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

A recent comment to one of the posts on Uncommon Descent states that nothing like an atheistic censorship committee exists to unfairly block out scientific arguments for ID. The comment maintains that ID simply needs to produce a sufficiently compelling argument in order to earn “a seat at the table.”

Let’s run with this a little. Imagine a school cafeteria, with one of those big, long tables where all the popular kids sit for lunch. If you didn’t belong to that crowd, you probably can immediately feel the unspoken barriers that make your attempt to sit at the table most unwelcome.

Now, in the scientific community, the rules are not unspoken. As stated in my book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, (p. 51) the rules are spelled out in bullet-point format. The first one states: “Modern science seeks explanation for observed phenomena that rely solely on natural causes.” As one who has made a career as a physicist for several decades, I would of course concur with this, in general. But what if the observed phenomenon is not consistent with natural causes?

Back to the table…

Would the popular kids (mainstream scientific academies) be open to even considering a conclusion that doesn’t “rely solely on natural causes”? These days, the evidence says, “No.”

Comments

Belfast at 51, They're wasting their time and money. No one knows how life got started on Earth. ONLY, and I mean ONLY IF they find microbes on Mars or possibly on the moon Europa, will they have something to study but NO IDEA of how it appeared. None. I'm sure they are hoping for something radically different from microbes on Earth but they may be in for a surprise. You may read a future article like this: Scientists Surprised and Baffled that Microbes from Mars are Remarkably Similar to Those on Earth.relatd_{October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Red Reader: A “sufficiently compelling argument” can never be made to an atheist because the atheistic belief system isn’t based on science. JVL @ 43: "A Christian view isn’t really based on science either. In fact, theological belief or disbelief isn’t really part of science at all." JVL "either"? Thanks for confirming. But the Christian view IS based on science: By "Christian view", I mean, "the Creator of space/time entered space/time as a man, demonstrated an ability to control space/time/matter/energy in ways we call "miraculous"—water into wine, walk on water, heal the blind." Scientific evidence for the Christian view as defined: -- multiple eye-witnesses carefully recorded their first-hand observations of these and numerous other "miraculous" occurrences; this data is still available for review in the present day. -- the data is "self-authenticating"; it is consistent with contemporaneous and subsequent history. -- the observations themselves were corroborated in numerous ways both contemporaneously as well as BEFORE and AFTER the contemporaneous events. -- no evidence has been found to show the eye-witness accounts to be false; there's been lots of speculation, lots of skepticism, and lots of refusal to examine the historical data. The only "science" in atheism is all atheist's claim that they personally see no evidence of intelligence greater than their own—which is NOT science, but anti-science, and only confirms their refusal to view evidence for Intelligence greater than their own. This is the same kind of "science" which before the Wright Brothers, proved mathematically and theologically a flying machine could not be built. Thus, no scientific argument can ever be made which would motivate atheists to give "Intelligent Design" a "seat at the table" because their opposition to such arguments is not based on science.Red Reader_{October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

SG, it seems you have been toxically programmed with a raft of ad hom laced, strawman caricature arguments. It is some time now since I spoke to three distinct factors, 1: the design inference on tested reliable sign, 2: design theory as involving those who use/investigate the inference (as well as friendly, responsible critics), 3: a design support movement. I have little doubt that many who are engaged in or support design thought are in the Judaeo-Christian tradition of ethical theism, but the design inference and theory core is not unduly dependent on it as the example from that Bible-thumping fundy -- NOT -- Plato demonstrates, an example that directly speaks to say, Newton's General Scholium to Principia and sets up Query 31 in Opticks (which lays out the School level sci method framework). So, you are playing toxic rhetoric games that blind you to truth, as what you imagine you know is fundamentally false. KF PS, Plato, The Laws Bk X:
Athenian Stranger: [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
PPS, I trust you will now be open to the less toxic reading that c 1984, Thaxton et al pioneered a fresh modern approach pivoting on thermodynamics questions that opened the way to the informational school of thermodynamics, TMLO. Such is after Hoyle and others from the 50s on pioneered investigation of fine tuning and linked challenges due to the biology of information rich polymers. Bluntly put, Gibbs Free Energy is not amenable to popping off a few Bible verses or the like and we can see that at micro level, S, entropy, is a metric of the average info gap between macro level state and particular microstate. The popular level textbook, Pandas, did not create these things, and surely a reasonable view as opposed to confession of guilt by projection of toxic suspicion to the despised other, is that when Thaxton et al sought a better framework of terms to say what they wanted to express, they found design terms and particularly emphasising the intelligently directed configuration to be what they wished to say. This view clearly connects to a deep, empirically anchored stream of thought in our civilisation and -- manifestly -- is not driven by discussion of Bible interpretations. I will shortly argue, that the systems engineering perspective and particularly reverse engineering allows us to again tap a rich vein of thought on what science is, how it works and why we are not making gross errors to notice design patterns in say DNA, RNA and the work of ribosomes.kairosfocus_{October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles mocks and ridicules the notion of both Intelligent Design and Creationism as being proper scientific worldviews, as if his own worldview of Atheistic Naturalism is the obvious 'scientific' worldview, and that his worldview is somehow above being mocked and ridiculed as being 'anti-science'. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if any worldview deserves to be mocked and ridiculed as being a 'anti-scientific' worldview, then Sir Gile's atheistic naturalism is certainly that worldview First off, the atheist's naturalistic worldview, in its denial of teleology, is simply a non-starter as far as providing a coherent foundation on which modern science can be practiced. Specifically, atheistic naturalists deny that there is any real purpose, reason, and/or teleology, for why anything happens in this universe.
teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function. Traditionally, it was also described as final causality, https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
Yet, as Dr. Egnor noted elsewhere, you simply can't 'do science' without presupposing that there exists a purpose and/or reason for why things happen in this universe. Specifically, "No explanation of nature — not in biology or physics or in any natural science — makes sense without recourse to final causes. Final cause – teleology — is the cause of causes."
"No explanation of nature — not in biology or physics or in any natural science — makes sense without recourse to final causes. Final cause – teleology — is the cause of causes." - Egnor https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/the-universe-has-no-purpose-but-we-can-pretend/ How Is Purpose Related to Teleology in Nature? Michael Egnor - August 9, 2017 Excerpt: In two earlier posts (here and here), I’ve commented on materialist philosopher Joseph Carter’s New York Times essay, “The Universe Doesn’t Care About Your Purpose.” Carter denies the existence of teleology in nature, but he is mistaken. Nature is saturated with teleology, and modern sciences such as physics and biology are impossible without reference to directedness of natural change and “what things are for.” Carter tries to explain the obvious purposes of human beings as being derived from evolution, but his attempt to link purpose to procreation is more humor than science or logic. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/how-is-purpose-related-to-teleology-in-nature/
Modern science simply is not possible without presupposing that there is a purpose, reason, and/or teleology behind the universe and/or for why things happen in the universe. As Paul Davies noted, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
Again, Atheistic Naturalism, in its denial of teleology, is simply a non-starter as far as modern science is concerned. And as much as it may please Sir Giles to mock and ridicule Intelligent Design and/or Creationism as being 'anti-science, modern science simply owes its very existence to the presupposition that the universe has a rational basis, (i.e. to the presupposition of Intelligent Design), and even to the presupposition that the universe is contingent. (i.e. to the presupposition of 'Creationism'.)
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
Directly contrary to what Sir Giles apparently believes when he mocked and ridiculed Intelligent Design as somehow being anti-science, all of science, every nook and cranny, is based on the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on his presupposition of atheistic naturalism.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
And again, if any worldview deserves to be mocked and ridiculed as being a 'anti-scientific' worldview, then Sir Gile's atheistic naturalism is certainly that worldview. Specifically, insisting on naturalistic explanations, i.e. methodological naturalism, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, ends up driving science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Edgar Allen Poe's "A Dream within a Dream" is a very fitting eulogy for Sir Gile's atheistic naturalism
A Dream Within a Dream BY EDGAR ALLAN POE Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
bornagain77_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

“Maybe you have deluded yourself into believing that ID isn’t about the Judeo-Christian God, but, well…“ Actually it’s not, yes you are right that many individuals of ID are Judeo-Christian but there are those who aren’t https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten-dover-myths-7/ This is helpful Secondly I would welcome any other ID proponents from Spinoza’s God, aliens, to panpsychism. As long as we could meet in the middle and toss that reductionistic GOG philosophy Darwinian evolution out into the trash where it belongs.AaronS1978_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Sir Giles The ‘find and replace’ and the ‘wedge’ mentions of design are just reiterations. The design argument was not ‘born’ then as you originally wrote, it is very old. It’s hard to believe you actually believe what you wrote, but when you added an imagined motivation in me to start a fresh issue it appears to be an attempt to slither out. You were wrong about design being born when you said. That’s it. You were wrong.Belfast_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

JVL @41. “I don’t know how life got started. No one does. No one is claiming they do know.” Stop parroting ‘nobody knows’ it is naive and misleading. Nearly every major university, and NASA, and other research centres, DO KNOW that life got started through natural causes, abiogenesis. They just don’t know how. They spend hundreds of millions looking for a natural cause. Harvard University in 2006 set aside one hundred million dollars, $100,000,000, to find a source of life on earth compliant with natural laws. The following year it established its Origins of Life Initiative aimed at revealing if life is found elsewhere in the Universe. Their presumption is that natural conditions dictated the origin of life whether here or on some undiscovered planet or planets. Georgia Tech at the same time confidently laid aside $1.5 million dollars with a plan for a total of $15 million over five years to discover the same natural origin of life. Money spent without result, GT is now searching for the origin of life in outer space having received a grant from NASA to go look. Since Haeckel, 150 plus years ago, and Oparin nearly 100 years ago, evolutionary chemists have actively sought to show that life came naturally from reacting chemicals. 2024 will mark the 100th anniversary of the declaration of Oparin, that “very very soon the last barriers between the living and the dead will crumble under the attack of patient work and powerful scientific thought.” He was referring to abiogenesis. Millions and millions are not being spent on the off-chance of abiogenesis, they do ‘know’ and have given an IOU to that end. Stating “I do not know” also means when the context is examined, “I do know it was not by God or some other beyond-natural agency.”Belfast_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Belfast: Not even wrong, but nonsense.
So, the find-and-replace of “scientific creationism” for “intelligent design” in an early draft of “Of Pandas and People” was just a coincidence? Or the “wedge document”? Maybe you have deluded yourself into believing that ID isn’t about the Judeo-Christian God, but, well…Sir Giles_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Sir Giles @ 47 “This triggered another rebranding, and Intelligent Design was born.” Not even wrong, but nonsense. H.L.Mencken, for example, showed not only was it alive in 1924 but was a long-standing argument when he scorned it and wrote, “THE ARGUMENT from design, once the bulwark of Christian apologetics,….”Belfast_{October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

SG at 47, I am against the antics of the Global Cabal of Relabelers and Repackagers. I vote to keep Intelligent Design.relatd_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Rebranding Creationism as Scientific Creationism caused a flurry of activity that quickly lost its inertia. This triggered another rebranding, and Intelligent Design was born. Again, this stirred increased activity. But as with Scientific Creationism, the media attention soon died. Perhaps it is time for another re-branding.Sir Giles_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Everything you mentioned directly affects the science. And simple optimism doesn’t fix that. Point in case the libet experimentAaronS1978_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978: This was a good study, showing that if you didn’t believe in freewill, your research often would conclude that you had no free will despite the evidence, and this is very common in science If you think people's beliefs affect science . . . I believe people's beliefs affect their behaviour, I believe people's beliefs affect what they chose to investigate and look into, I believe that people's beliefs can affect their interpretation of results. But I also think that, eventually, given repetition by other researchers and studies with some variations the real science will come out. Sometimes it takes a while but that's what happens in the end.JVL_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

“A Christian view isn’t really based on science either. In fact, theological belief or disbelief isn’t really part of science at all“ I can tell you that this is objectively not true Even Lawrence Krauss admitted that. Now, if you’re saying objectively that they don’t belong in science, I would redact my statement. Maybe I misunderstood you, but from how I am reading this comment, you are saying they’re not part of science, I know, for a fact that both, particularly the disbelieve portion of it, very much influences people’s science and it’s this bias that makes it part of their science https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-03-tackles-neuroscience-free.html This was a good study, showing that if you didn’t believe in freewill, your research often would conclude that you had no free will despite the evidence, and this is very common in scienceAaronS1978_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Red Reader: A “sufficiently compelling argument” can never be made to an atheist because the atheistic belief system isn’t based on science. A Christian view isn't really based on science either. In fact, theological belief or disbelief isn't really part of science at all. Ruling out Intelligent Design of ATP synthase on the grounds that such design is “not natural” is like going into Wendy’s and demanding they prepare you a Big Mac; it is simply insane. That's not why ID is considered less than compelling in that case. The issue is that there is no real physical evidence of intelligent design except people like you saying: these biological structures and processes are like machines. Like is not the same as the same. Atheists make such a choice based not on science, but in opposition to science, on an irrational a-priori belief there is no God and therefore no intelligence in the universe greater than man’s. I'd say most atheists make the choice to not believe in (a) God because of the lack of evidence support the existence of such a being. It doesn't mean there are greater intelligences in the universe but we haven't seen any compelling evidence any exist. Next week, if some aliens land on the White House lawn I might change my mind. When there is new evidence then opinions change.JVL_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL implies that we would believe in Darwinian evolution if only we “read the journals, you attend the conferences, you talk to your colleagues. You make an attempt to keep up with the current work.” Another misinterpretation by you. You are either a fool (you read what I wrote but didn't understand it) a knave (you read what I wrote but purposely misrepresented it). Which is it?JVL_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Tammie Lee Haines: Lets say for the past 50 years I had tried to keep up. I read the journals, attended the conferences, talked to colleagues. I mean the top gurus. Did you? For 50 years? Then please answer this: How did life get started? I don't know how life got started. No one does. No one is claiming they do know. What is happening is that scientists are checking out various scenarios and parts of scenarios. Some paradigms are gaining more support, some are looking less and less likely. And if you had spent 50 years keeping up with the science you would know that. But you don't so clearly you haven't kept up. And now you demand someone do that for you and type it all into the text boxes on this blog. Perhaps you should try reading some books. IF you really care. Which you don't. You're happy to just repeat the mantras given to you by some semi-famous people who you think you agree with even though you haven't got the background or knowledge to fact check what they tell you. That's about it isn't it?JVL_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

F/N1: AF tries a stunt to rhetorically suggest that intelligence is a subjective mirage and marginalise the concept, "tell me, what is intelligence? Is it quantifiable? What units? Is there an algorithm?" 1- He of course is a case in point of an intelligence, living on a planet full of others, so some reflection on experience and observation would have readily shown key characteristics of this pivotal real world phenomenon. 2- A good first start for such a commonplace is the dictionary. Webster's is throwing a bad gateway error this morning, so, let's try:
in•tel•li•gence (?n?t?l ? d??ns) n. 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, and understanding; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. mental alertness or quickness of understanding. 3. manifestation of a high mental capacity. 4. the faculty or act of understanding. 5. information received or imparted; news. 6. a. secret information, esp. about an enemy or potential enemy. b. the gathering or distribution of such information. c. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information. d. an organization engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence. 7. (often cap.) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one. [1350–1400; Middle English < Latin] Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
3- Similarly, Wikipedia (despite potential ideological embarrassment) confesses:
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. One of the more precise definitions for intelligence is that it is a physical force that acts to maximize future freedom of action.[1] [--> notice, the embedding of physicalism] Intelligence is most often studied in humans but has also been observed in both non-human animals and in plants [--> most likely, canned intelligence for plants] despite controversy as to whether some of these forms of life exhibit intelligence.[2][3] Intelligence in computers or other machines [--> canned, again] is called artificial intelligence.
3- Observe, the tip toe around one of the classic signs of intelligence, knowledge and understanding, creative, understanding use of contextually relevant language and/or symbolic representation. Lehninger's parallel between an Assyrian, Cuneiform inscription and a bacterium with DNA strand bursting out of it is a capital illustration. 4- Measurement and metrics, classically, fit the NOIR framework, ratio, interval, | ordinal, nominal scales. The first two are continuous state, the latter need not be, e.g. true vs false is a recognisable distinction without necessary import of ranking in an order. Fuzzy logic circumstances can allow us to proportionally allocate membership in bins, e.g. to measure warm vs cold. 5- We are familiar with IQ scales and how they compare to a normed scale of intelligent action, and we have behaviourally anchored rating scales, also Likert like scales. AF, doubtless knows these and how we measure human intelligence. 6- We know the cell exhibits coded information and algorithms in a metabolic, molecular nanotech automaton that effects a von Neumann, kinematic self replicator. That scales the intelligence involved in such design: language and algorithm using machinery using sophisticated polymer chemistry and exhibiting a level of systems engineering beyond anything we have so far achieved. 7- Perhaps across this century we will reverse engineer and synthesise our own de novo cases. That will require building on a planetary baseline of centuries of research and technological development, pioneered by hundreds of genius level investigators. Either a civilisation or a team or individual at that level. 8- So, complex, high science, high tech civilisation level intelligence is already involved. 9- But also, we deal with a cosmos fine tuned in many ways for such C-chem, aqueous medium cell based life. This starts with the physics of atoms. That requires more than Hi-Sci, Hi-tech civilisation level intelligence. It requires cosmos building intelligence and power. Extra Cosmic, cosmos creating intelligence. 10- Further, we know that a cosmos like ours is temporal-causal, thermodynamically constrained and proceeds by cumulative stages such as years. The logic of structure and quantity, aka mathematice, tells us such cannot complete an explicit or implicit transfinite traverse so is inherently finitely bound in the past. 11- Arguably, heat death implies a finite future bound as it winds down to a point where measures such as time at cosmic scale become meaningless. 12- So, contingent and as neither circular retrocausation nor a world from utter non being are reasonable, we are looking at implied necessary, world framework being as root of reality. Such an entity is inherently eternal. In short, as a contingent world is, something, necessary being reality root capable of being source of worlds, always was. 13- Moreover, we find ourselves to be responsible, rational, significantly free creatures capable of reasoning, warrant, knowledge, and as part of that inherently accountable before first duties of reason which are first law. We are inescapably morally governed creatures. 14- Thus we also need a sufficient root of moral government. That points to the inherently good and utterly wise, exhibiting maximal greatness by contrast with a mere demiurge. 15- A familiar figure emerges, whether we like it or not. 16- We have a bill of requisites for reality root. 17- There is just one serious candidate to fill it: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God as understood in ethical theism; a maximally great, necessary, reality root being. One, worthy of respect, of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. 18- Where, a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being as a square circle is, or is actual as framework to any possible world. (And, atheists and fellow travellers have no serious argument that the God of Ethical Theism is impossible of being due to mutually inconsistent core characteristics, especially post Plantinga.) KFkairosfocus_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

AF [attn JVL], the evidence over the past several weeks in which you tried to pretend that it is ignorance of biochem that leads to misnomers such as viewing DNA as bearing complex code exposes your projection. We were there as you tried to tip toe around the Lehninger case. This is decisive on two levels. First, that life is based on language- using technology that effects algorithms using sophisticated polymer chem (which BTW is a commonplace of organic chem, as is assembly or machine language and computer architecture in a digital age). Such are about as strong a cluster of signs of design antecedent to and enabling of cell based life on earth as we could ask for . . . the real SETI Wow signal; for OoL and Oo body plans including our own. Thus, second, we have demonstration by decades long case study (not only here at UD but in relevant Science, Education and Media organisations and networks) that institutionally embedded ideology is essentially impervious to the strongest evidence contrary to their agenda. As a result, it is time to use the adapted JoHari window, recognise ideologically driven, hall of mirrors breakdown of the integrity of the knowledge commons and declare knowledge independence as a reformation movement. The key step in that is to focus epistemological issues, much as Keynes had to do in the 1920's and 30's for macroeconomics. KF PS, Computer architecture at first level, is the study of the assembly/machine language view, i.e. information, its processing [including coding, algorithmic processes etc], associated function units, their organisation. Underlying physical science and technique to effect these units carries us to the layer cake, modular network, systems view. With analogue computers, the focus is on continuous state function units and how they represent key mathematical operations [famously, integration] that then integrate in a process flow network to handle continuous state information bearing signals and materials or states and phases of dynamic stochastic entities etc. This extends the context to instrumentation, control and systems engineering as well as telecommunications, bringing in frequency domain transforms and approaches as well as state/phase space approaches. These give us fresh eyes to see and more objectively understand the molecular nanotech marvels in the cell.kairosfocus_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

There are some seriously talented hair splitters on this siteAaronS1978_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

"The comment maintains that ID simply needs to produce a sufficiently compelling argument in order to earn 'a seat at the table'.” Nope. A "sufficiently compelling argument" can never be made to an atheist because the atheistic belief system isn't based on science. Science examines cause and effect. When we see machinery in the world around us, we know immediately, without the slightest doubt, that the machinery was designed and constructed with intelligence, forethought, and purpose. Our brains seem to be constructed in such a way as to recognize such design intuitively without a second thought. The same is true when we observe biological machinery such as ATP synthase, for example. We intuitively recognize its incredible design and efficiency, its perfect functioning within a much larger system which also exhibits functional design by intelligence, forethought, and purpose. We intuitively recognize the molecules of the machine did not arrange themselves accidentally. Ruling out Intelligent Design of ATP synthase on the grounds that such design is "not natural" is like going into Wendy's and demanding they prepare you a Big Mac; it is simply insane. To suggest such machinery could occur without great intelligence “Slowly, through some sort of intermediate or other” is willful refusal to admit what one's own brain effortlessly recognizes. Atheists make such a choice based not on science, but in opposition to science, on an irrational a-priori belief there is no God and therefore no intelligence in the universe greater than man’s.Red Reader_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

JVL implies that we would believe in Darwinian evolution if only we "read the journals, you attend the conferences, you talk to your colleagues. You make an attempt to keep up with the current work." Hmmm, really?
Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science. https://world.wng.org/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_publics_doubt_of_darwin
In the following article Brian Miller, via a conference, presents an excellent historical overview of the debate between atheists and Theists, as well as the current state of the debate, as far as the scientific evidence itself in concerned.
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller – June 2, 2021 Excerpt: In the opening talk, organizer Gerd Müller stated that the SEM, (the standard evolutionary model), could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here, here): *The origin of complex new traits such as eyes (here, here, here). *The consistent pattern in the fossil record of the sudden appearance of radically new organisms followed by periods of no significant change (here, here). *The distribution of genetic variation in species. He was referring to the fact that no genetic variation exists in any species that would allow for large-scale transformations (here, here). For instance, crossbreeding dogs will only produce dogs since dogs only have dog genes. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/
As well, I guess the "who's who" list of scientists at the "Third Way" just did not keep up with the current scientific work or else they would believe in natural selection??
Below, you will find a list of researchers and authors who have, in one way or another, expressed their concerns regarding natural selection’s scope and who believe that other mechanisms are essential for a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes. https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people
A few more notes:
Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 Excerpt: "The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field." (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) ) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes - July 2012 Excerpt: Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.,, The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’ Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’ Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’ Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’ If scientists can’t point to a natural process that can drive evolution, why should evolution (by force of law) be taught as science, (as a fact), in school classrooms? http://creation.com/creation-religious-education 5 Royal Problems with Macro-Evolution - Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe - January 7, 2017 https://streamer1.afa.net/afr-aod/crossexamined/ft_20170107.mp3 Frank Turek interviews Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe - The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with the Neo-Darwinian, Macro-Evolution, theory. - 11:30 minute mark - 1. Fossil Record 2. Origin of Information 3. Necessity for Early Mutations (in embryological development) 4. Epigenetic or Structural Information etc.. etc..
Golly gee whiz, it looks like JVL is caught being deceptive once again.
"Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview" - GIVING UP DARWIN: A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory – By David Gelernter - May 1, 2019 - - David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale University, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, and member of the National Council of the Arts.
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Dear JVL Please allow me to call your bluff. You wrote "IF you are really interested in the science then you keep up, you read the journals, you attend the conferences, you talk to your colleagues. You make an attempt to keep up with the current work. I don’t see anyone here doing that at all. " Now take Origin of Life. Lets say for the past 50 years I had tried to keep up. I read the journals, attended the conferences, talked to colleagues. I mean the top gurus. Speaking as a Creationist, I say this: I would of wasted my time. None of these Scientists got a clue how life got started. You disagree? Then please answer this: How did life get started?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Jerry: The fact that you don’t provide the evidence is the best proof one has. If you or anyone else had the information, we would never hear the end of it. This site would disappear. OR we have, in the past, provided you the evidence and you and others have just denied it or ignored it. And, even if this site has not seen evidence it accepts that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's not widely available and published. There seems to be some kind of blog-centric notion that if something doesn't appear here it doesn't exist. And there is a habit of some commentators saying that if they haven't seen it here then they are not convinced. If you are a real scientist those kind of attitudes don't fly; they just send you to the back of the queue. IF you are really interested in the science then you keep up, you read the journals, you attend the conferences, you talk to your colleagues. You make an attempt to keep up with the current work. I don't see anyone here doing that at all. What I do see is you all repeating the same things over and over and over again. And when any of us in opposition attempt to update you it all just gets dismissed. Why should we bother? In fact, didn't you already admit you were not interested in having a conversation, a dialogue, about the issues? You have already made up your mind so your trying to elicit responses you're not even interested in is pretty duplicitous don't you think? Why are you here really?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Jerry at 32, I have the answer. It's Intelligent Design. It is THE answer. So what we have here is an eternal divide which exists because some think that natural/luck explanations are better. Regardless of a lack of evidence. Notice that when this occurs, it means one side is wrong. The FACT that they will not admit to a lack of evidence does NOT slow them down. They have their orders: Darwin good, ID bad. Repeat constantly. They are surrounding by a Ignore The Facts force field. It cannot be penetrated by actual facts. So, the "alternative" Darwin explanation will be repeated forever, if not longer.relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

you can’t deny the sequences.
But, I don’t. I emphasize them. They disprove any mechanism thought of so far used to explain Evolution. The fact that you don’t provide the evidence is the best proof one has. If you or anyone else had the information, we would never hear the end of it. This site would disappear. Here is the 100% ignored by both sides way to prove for ever whether any natural process is responsible for Evolution. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 As I said there would be forensic evidence. Meanwhile, we get bluster and inanity. They would prefer arguing over nonsense than understanding what has happened to create complex life. Neither side is interested in the answer.jerry_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary Fitness Is Not Measurable - November 20, 2021 The central concept of natural selection cannot be measured. This means it has no scientific value. Excerpt:,, to measure something, it needs units. How is fitness to be measured? What are the units? Physicists have degrees Kelvin, ergs and Joules of energy and Faradays of electricity, but do 100 Spencers on a Haeckl-o-meter equal 10 Darwins of fitness? ,,, The term “fitness” becomes nebulous when you try to pin it down. Five evolutionists attempted to nail this jello to the wall, and wrote up their results in a preprint on bioRxiv by Alif et al. that asked, “What is the best fitness measure in wild populations?” (One might wonder why this question is being asked 162 years after Darwin presented his theory to the world.) ,,, The authors admit that their results do not necessarily apply to all living things. (they state), "A universal definition of fitness in mathematical terms that applies to all population structures and dynamics is however not agreed on." Remember that this statement comes over 162 years after evolutionists began talking about fitness. If you cannot define something, how can you measure it? And if you can’t measure it, is it really scientific?,,, https://crev.info/2021/11/evolutionary-fitness-is-not-measurable/ Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller - September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: "Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument." Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

AF, as you know but strawman caricature, the relevant foot in the door is intelligence. KF
Nope. I know no such thing. (I know nothing for sure but let that pass.) I'm still stuck in quarantine with nothing to do so , tell me, what is intelligence? Is it quantifiable? What units? Is there an algorithm?Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

AF, as you know but strawman caricature, the relevant foot in the door is intelligence. KF PS, as a reminder:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/kairosfocus_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

If it did, there would be a forensic trail through the genomes of history to support any hypothesis.
But there is, Jerry. It's everywhere we look when we do sequence comparisons. You can deny the evolutionary mechanism, but you can't deny the sequences.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply