A weak excuse

_{October 17, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Often Intelligent Design is accused by some evolutionists of not being able to perfectly calculate the complex specified information of a system. From that accusation some ID opponents directly infer that ID has no scientific status. In my opinion this accusation and its corollary is a pure demagogical pretest, a weak excuse.

See the following image (sizes are not real):

The image shows, from left to right, a clothespin, a bike and a bird. To whoever uses such pretest against ID I ask this simple question: what is more complex, more organized, between a clothespin and a bike? What do you answer? Do you answer clothespin is more complex? No, you answer the bike is more complex. Did you need some perfect calculation to answer? No. Why no perfect calculation is necessary? Because it is evident that a bike is a set containing more complex functions, more organization, than a clothespin. A clothespin has a unique function: to press thin materials between its two arms by means of a spring.

Again, if I ask you what is more complex between a bike and a bird, what do you answer? The bird, because a bird is a set containing far more complex functions and organization than a bike.

All this means that perfect measures are not always necessary when we analyze sets or hierarchies of functions like bike and organisms. An approximate measure is sufficient to establish an ordering about their complexity. In the above picture this ordering is symbolized by two “<" signs. Therefore the order of complexity is indubitably: "clothespin < bike < bird".

Of course, this doesn't mean that scientific efforts to improve complexity measures are useless. The countless measures of complexity and organization content developed so far represent an important contribution to science. No one denies that and ID gives its contribution to the task. But indeed the multitude of these measures shows the unavoidable matter of principle: as just said in another previous post of mine, perfect quantification of quality is impossible.

Happily, it is not necessary an (impossible) perfect quantification of quality to somehow grasp quality and do some ordering among different levels of qualities in the things and systems. So the excuse that ID is nonsense because it cannot perfectly quantify design is a weak one. Who uses such excuse to deny design in nature makes us to recall again Romans 1:

“…for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Comments

Thanks bornagain77 Along the lines of recognizing design in nature from signs, there is another important quote by Jesus about birds, lilies and humans (Matthew 6,26):
Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? [...] Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
Doubtlessly those words should be interpreted in a ID perspective of recognition of design in nature. In fact the "clothes" of birds, lilies and humans Jesus speaks about are symbolically their very bodies. So that, at the very end, the Jesus' suggestion is to consider the complexity of the bodies of the living creatures, be they birds, lilies or humans, and an ordering or hierarchy of increasing organization. Of course Jesus was eminently an IDer ante litteram. Not by chance he was also the "son of the carpenter", a precise symbolic reference to his "father", the Great Designer of the universe.niwrad_{October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

As to the undreamt of level of complexity being dealt with in living systems, compared to human technology, the comparison to our most advanced machines, in all honesty, is not even close. Michael Denton puts it this way:
“Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" Michael Denton PhD. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis pg. 329 "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must first magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity,...we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity." Michael Denton PhD., Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, pg.328
In fact the 'simplifying assumptions' of Darwinists,,
No, Scientists in Darwin's Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close - Casey Luskin - June 6, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it's probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_072871.html
,,, these 'simplifying assumptions' of Darwinists have been some of the main conceptual obstacles in conveying to students just how immensely more complex the cell is than anything man has ever made.
"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB -- and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme's active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second. But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." (Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294 (emphases added).) James Shapiro on “dangerous oversimplifications” about the cell - August 6, 2013 Excerpt: "Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function. https://uncommondescent.com/news/james-shapiro-on-dangerous-oversimplifications-about-the-cell/
And although video animations of molecular biology have been a very useful tool in getting the message across to students as to some of the undreamt complexity being dealt with in the cell,,
The Inner Life of a Cell – video (page down just a bit to view the video) http://www.studiodaily.com/2006/07/cellular-visions-the-inner-life-of-a-cell/
,, these animations still fall far short of truly impressing upon us the immensity of the complexity being dealt with in molecular biology over and above what man has ever designed. For instance, although the molecular animations give the impression that there is plenty of room in the cell, the reality of the situation in the cell is far different,,
The physics of going viral: Researchers measure the rate of DNA transfer from viruses to bacteria - June 27, 2012 Excerpt: E. coli cells contain roughly 3 million proteins within a box that is roughly one micron (1,000 nanometers) on each side. Less than 10 nanometers separate each protein from its neighbors. "There's no room for anything else," Phillips says. "These cells are really crowded." http://phys.org/news/2012-06-physics-viral-dna-viruses-bacteria.html
But why do the molecular animations show such a 'roomy' cell when the actual situation in the cell is far different?, i.e. far more cramped? The fact of the matter is that, despite the stunning advances that have recently been made in molecular biology, we are still grossly ignorant of many of the intricate processes of the cell.
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm
Thus, in all honesty, it is simply completely disingenuous for Darwinists to try to impose their 'gross oversimplifications' onto what is happening in the cell since it is, in fact, a gross mis-caricaturization of what is actually happening in the cell, and is far more apt to slow down, and even mislead, future research, than it ever to providing a fruitful, and accurate, conceptual basis for students (and scientists) studying cells seeking to unravel more mysteries of the cell!
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
Verse and Music;
Psalm 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. Creation Calls -- are you listening? Music by Brian Doerksen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwGvfdtI2c0
bornagain77_{October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

and the fossil evidence is far more antagonistic towards the Darwinian scenario than Darwinists are willing to let on;
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video with notes in description http://vimeo.com/30926629
The following recent article was just plain neat to learn about:
Study shows alpine swift (bird) can stay aloft for 200 days - Oct. 8, 2013 Excerpt: In analyzing the data captured by the sensors, the researchers found that the test birds stayed in the air at one point for 200 days, covering approximately 10,000 kilometers in the process. This, the researchers report, is the longest flight duration ever recorded by a bird, and is only equaled by some sea-going creatures who need only propel themselves forward—birds of course also have to keep themselves in the air, a process that consumes a lot of energy. Some of the most obvious questions that come to mind regarding the birds are: how do they eat and drink? When do they sleep? Prior research has an answer for the first, they eat what is known collectively as aerial plankton—a mix of fungus spores, small insects, seeds and even bacteria that float about in the sky. The water in their food is apparently enough to sustain the birds indefinitely. As for how and when they sleep, scientists are still divided. Data from the sensors in the study indicated slow-downs, or periods of reduced activity where the birds glided more than flapped, but that clearly isn't enough evidence to prove that the birds were sleeping. Some suggest that the birds, like some other organisms, don't have to sleep, or only do so during certain periods of their lifecycle, such as during mating season. http://phys.org/news/2013-10-alpine-swift-aloft-days.html
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” Lynyrd Skynyrd - Free Bird-BBC - 1975 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkTQUtx818w
bornagain77_{October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Here are few short video clips from the recent documentary "FLIGHT":
FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Hummingbird tongue - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Feathers - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Flight muscles - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdvkopOmw0 FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Skeletal system - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4 Flight: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic Development - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto
Here is a short video which highlights the much greater level of sophistication, in engineering, that the bird wing has over the airplane wing:
How Bird Wings Work (Compared to Airplane Wings) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKokxPRtck
along that note:
The Marvelous Flight Capabilities of Birds - December 2, 2012 Excerpt: “Avian flight,” a new study,,,, “complex biotechnical architecture of avian wings,” the “magic structural wing asymmetries” so important for aeroelastic flight control, and the “extremely precise coordination of the complex wing beat motions, together with a perfect flight guidance and control performance.” Then there are the flight muscles, sense organs and “extremely developed cerebellum” functioning as a guidance and control computer center. These “biological elements communicate with lightning speed like an autopilot as a biotechnical marvel with unimaginable precision.” As the paper concludes, “With their spectacular flight capabilities, birds are really the inimitable flight artists of nature.”,,, Unimaginable precision. Spectacular flight capabilities. Extremely precise coordination.,,, A remarkable design that our best engineers still cannot figure out. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-marvelous-flight-capabilities-of.html
bornagain77_{October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Often Intelligent Design is accused by some evolutionists of not being able to perfectly calculate the complex specified information of a system. My understanding is that the issue is not that you cannot calculate CSI perfectly, it is that you cannot calculate CSI at all. RoyRoy_{October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply