Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seawater might have supplied the phosphorus required for emerging life.

Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions.

Phosphate is a crucial component of DNA and RNA, which are the building blocks of life, although it is one of the least common elements in the universe relative to its biological significance. Phosphate is also relatively inaccessible in its mineral form – it can be difficult to dissolve in water so that life can utilize it.

Scientists have long suspected that phosphorus became part of biology early on, but they have only recently begun to recognize the role of phosphate in directing the synthesis of molecules required by life on Earth, “Experiments show it makes amazing things happen – chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules if there is a lot of phosphate in solution,” said Tosca, Professor of Mineralogy & Petrology at Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences.

However, there has been debate over the precise circumstances required to create phosphate. According to some research, phosphate should actually be even less accessible to life when iron is plentiful. However, this is disputed since the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.

They used geochemical modeling to simulate the early Earth’s conditions in order to understand how life came to rely on phosphate and the kind of environment that this element would have evolved in.

The article goes on in this vein, but one wonders if it got written just for the sake of the overstated title.

For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?

Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?

Again, why do intelligent scientists fall into the assumption that finding a chemical ingredient in the environment that is necessary for life equates with the ability of natural processes to form all the biomolecules necessary for life, and without guidance to arrange these into coordinated functionality in a microscopic locality so that the outcome is a living cell? So many steps in this imagined process are mediated against by the known laws of physics, that to suggest it happened naturally is to depart from scientific credibility.

Full article at SciTech Daily.

Comments
make every effort to discourage any attempt to examine the nature of the designer and how the designs were realized.
No one who supports ID is stopping anyone from anything. That’s the obvious truth about ID. That’s why it is the best science on the planet. ID is     Science+ Aside: it must hurt to admit that ID represents better science. But it is obvious that it is.jerry
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
CD: First why would these “professors” take no scientific position on the source of the intelligent design?
A first year marketing student would understand the rationale. If you have a brand that has not achieved the uptake by the consumers that you had hoped, let’s use Scientific Creationism was an example, the first thing you do is research why this would be so. Following your polls, market surveys, focus groups, etc, you discover that the vast majority of people believe that Scientific Creationism is just a deceptive attempt to assign some scientific credibility to something that has no scientific basis. So, the marketing wizards decide to rebrand Scientific Creationism with a term that has no reference to god. And the Intelligent Design brand was launched. But, as part of the brand launch, the marketing wizards instructed the operational staff to make every effort to distance the brand from god and religion. In short, make no reference to god, and make every effort to discourage any attempt to examine the nature of the designer and how the designs were realized.Sir Giles
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
The most conservative estimate given for the lifetime of organic molecules is maximum 1my – and that was extremely generous. So the idea that any of the finds in #1 above are from 50my or greater is simply… unscientific.
Ah, I see your error. You are confusing DNA, specifically, with biomolecules, generally.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
1) Soft Tissue: Here’s one list [of] Dinosaur soft tissue research papers.
That's useful, thanks. Though the list is entitled "Biomaterial Fossil Papers" and includes papers discussing traces of biomolecules, not just tissue, which are two very different things. Just take a look at the titles.
The reason it is a problem is that organic molecules break down rapidly at real world temperatures due to background radiation, among other things. DNA half-life is roughly 500years, according to one paper I read
That has already come up in discussions here. The oldest DNA fragments so far date back 1.3m million years and I doubt that record will be surpassed significantly. So much for Jurassic Park. But collagen, under the right conditions, can last as traces much longer. Not seeing what the problem is. The survival of traces of ancient biomolecules is fascinating.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
OoL scientists have the perfect job. It is not easy trying to squeeze a camel through a neddle's eye but there is always a hope.whistler
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Alan Fox, 1) Soft Tissue: Here's one list Dinosaur soft tissue research papers. Feel free to Google your own, they're not hard to find. 2) The reason it is a problem is that organic molecules break down rapidly at real world temperatures due to background radiation, among other things. DNA half-life is roughly 500years, according to one paper I read - you can Google it easily enough. The most conservative estimate given for the lifetime of organic molecules is maximum 1my - and that was extremely generous. So the idea that any of the finds in #1 above are from 50my or greater is simply... unscientific. Hence all the original claims that they must've been "biofilms", or that soaking them in iron solutions (for millions of years?!?!) would somehow magically extend their resilience a couple orders of magnitude.drc466
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Imagine, if you will, a contest. A contest to build a working car. Contestants have two options: 1 - Start with as many parts of the simplest car as they want 2 - Start from scratch The first person or group to build a car that runs wins. Wins fame, fortune. Will be recorded in the history books with the likes of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Tesla, Edison and Ford. Just build a car from as many existing parts as they want. Now imagine that, for some inexplicable reason, every contestant, every last one, chooses option 2 instead. "Look, I can make a tire!" "And I can make a gasket!" "Look at my door panel!" Further imagine that all these people insist that making a car is just a few years away. Meanwhile, you're looking at the pile of perfectly good working car parts, wondering "why aren't they just building a car from these?" Sounds ridiculous, right? Yet that is the current state of "OoL Research ", and has been for 70 years. The challenge has been issued repeatedly - poke a hole in one cell life, take all those ready made parts, and put it back together into a one celled life form. They can't. They know they can't. So they build pieces and parts of organic molecules in mixtures and forms completely unusable for making a living cell, and lie to the public about how close they are. Ah, but you say, first life would have looked different! It wasn't made like existing cells, so it wouldn't have had those same parts! Great, says I. Then why are you wasting time trying to build those same parts from scratch? If Car 1 didn't use an engine block, why are you mining ore and casting engine blocks? Use whatever parts you want to, to get self-replication. If you need RNA, start with RNA, if you need amino acids, use amino acids, stop wasting everyone's time trying to show how amino acids formed. It's been 70 years for pete's sake, we'll grant you all the amino acids you want, just start putting parts together to get life already! Look, if making synthetic life is too hard, so you want to get paid to demonstrate an irrelevant process to make inferior and unusable parts, that's fine. But stop lying to the public about how abiogenesis is not only possible, but practically certain and "it'll happen in the next x to y years!" Take all the (non-living) parts you want. Make it live. Put up, or shut up.drc466
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Querius again:
– The skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were ALL supposedly petrified artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive.
Was this ever an issue? When fossils and their stratigraphy first began to be studied systematically (following on from William Smith's seminal work), the seeds of modern palaeontology were sown. This was all based on discovery and observation.
This was PREDICTED by Darwinism.
Really? Two questions? 1. Has any soft tissue, not just remnant biomolecules such as collagen, been unequivocally found? 2. Why would the discovery of such material be an issue for science?
It’s also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the unscientific possibility that 100+ million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive (in Chile, a recent find of Ichthyosaurus remains included preserved soft tissue in strata dated to 130-140 million years ago).
I've read a few articles about wonderfully well-preserved ichthyosaur fossils being recovered from high in the Andes in Chile. I didn't come across any reference to soft tissue preservation. Maybe Querius can indicate where he came across the information. Maybe a link to the primary paper(s)? And again, why would finding traces of soft tissue be an issue for "Darwinism"?Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Poor wording in 106 Please read as: Non-coding DNA can nevertheless be functional, such as sequences that are copied into transfer-RNA and ribosomal RNA.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
– The presumption that 98.8% of our genome is “junk DNA,” now called “non-coding DNA,” as additional examples of vestiges of random, undirected evolution by Susumu Ohno, the originator of the term.
Oh dear. The dialogue of the deaf and disingenuous continues. Non-coding DNA is DNA whose sequences are not translated into amino-acid sequences Non-coding DNA can nevertheless be functional, such as transfer-RNA and ribosomal RNA. Junk DNA is a subset of non-coding DNA that is currently not shown to perform any useful function for the host organism. Perhaps it would be less confusing to refer to such DNA as non-functional DNA. Examples of non-functional DNA are pseudogenes, endogenous retrovirus sequences, and some tandem repeat sequences. So junk DNA nests within non-coding DNA, but non-coding DNA is not all junk DNA. Of course, in the mainstream, researchers still look for functionality in sequences, and will undoubtedly reduce the percentage of DNA that is not known either to have or not to have function.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Martin thanks for the link it was really good. I would say he is pretty pissed off. Vividvividbleau
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: Is there any doubt at all that people constructed the Antikythera mechanism? Parts are covered with inscriptions written in Ancient Greek, after all. None whatsoever. In fact, they may have been able to narrow down its date of calibration considerably.
The instrument is believed to have been designed and constructed by Greek scientists and has been variously dated to about 87 BC, or between 150 and 100 BC, or to 205 BC. In any case, it must have been constructed before the shipwreck, which has been dated by multiple lines of evidence to approximately 70–60 BC. In 2022 researchers proposed that the initial calibration date of the machine (not its actual date of construction) could have been 23 December 178 BC. Other experts propose 204 BC as a more likely calibration date
So, unlike ID 'researchers', mainstream scientists when presented with a mysterious artefact, study it, examine it closely, and come to some solid conclusions about where and when and why it was constructed. Thanks Querius for bringing it up. It points out how completely different regular science is from ID 'science'. When regular science studies patterns or suspected designs they come up with explanations, dates, methods, reasons for construction. There is more scientific information in the Wikipedia article about the Antikythera mechanism than I've seen in any ID publication studying the design behind DNA. Oh, by the way, if you do happen to read the Wikipedia article it is pointed out that the mechanism was not, in fact, very accurate. Some designers . . . they try and don't quite get it right. Sigh.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
Martin_r: from a mainstream Darwinian paper What does "a growing number" mean? 3%? 5%? 10%? From further down in the abstract (which is all you will have read no doubt):
Our previous findings, together with evidence of their poor conservation, prompted us to propose that pseudogenes may contribute to primate- or human-specific regulation, especially in hematopoiesis.
Oh dear, the dreaded "may" term. Aren't you always hideously critical of ideas that use "may" too much? I'm pretty sure you are. i give you an advice, for free, – you constantly have to keep in mind, that Darwinists are always wrong … they always re-think what they claimed earlier. So, you (and Whistler) have a problem with people refining their idea and arguments based on new data and results? Is that it? It's too hard for you to keep up with the latest results and ideas so you just say it's all garbage?JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
Querius: Fossils were all supposed to be minerals that filled in the hollow spaces left by dead organisms buried in silt. Yet, many organisms 100+ million years old are preserved with organic material including red blood cells and “stretchy” tissues despite being cooked by background radiation for 100+ million years. It should be undifferentiated powder and this can be simulated experimentally in a lab using an equivalent amount of radiation while controlling the temperature. Perhaps you'd like to point to particular examples and the reasons given for why the organic material was preserved? And: how much background radiation are you talking about? Yes. This is one of five or six ways that the DNA of an organism can increase in length, becoming incorporated and useful as genes. That's very unguided evolutionary of you! So, you agree, that at first, the pseudogenes have no particular function? For example, the Antikythera mechanism has still been studied as if it were intelligently designed even though it’s not possible to determine the intelligent designer, right? It was a human being who lived at roughly a given time who had access to the tools and materials available at that time. It's not that big of a deal you know. It's frequently brought up as some intense mystery that is baffling scientists and turning our theories on their heads. Which is just not true. Some human being was very clever and came up with the mechanism which, I think, we may have some idea of what it was for.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
For example, the Antikythera mechanism has still been studied as if it were intelligently designed even though it’s not possible to determine the intelligent designer, right?
Is there any doubt at all that people constructed the Antikythera mechanism? Parts are covered with inscriptions written in Ancient Greek, after all.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Relatd: The current Marxist-Atheist state within a state wants to control education and the media, and spread its messages. Really? So all the countries of Europe, which teach evolution as part of the basic school curriculum (along with RE - Religious Education) are part of this plot? And yet there is no great hue and cry that kids are being turned away from faith or Christianity.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Darwinists are always wrong … they always re-think what they claimed earlier.
:) Comment of the month. Except they change only their explanations to protect the central religious dogma of Darwin that remain unchanged.whistler
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Seversky, JVL, CD and co. below is the latest Dr. Tour's presentation on OoL research. I don't ask you to watch the whole presentation, but i strongly suggest, if you like these debates, that you watch/listen the Q & A part of this presentation. Young students ask some interesting questions, questions you may ask here on UD as well. starts at 55:51, just click the link, it jumps right into Q & A part. https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y?t=3351martin_r
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
JVL @84
Relatd: All Junk DNA will be found to have function. JVL: Even the pseudogenes?
JVL, what are you talking about? from a mainstream Darwinian paper:
Pseudogenes are DNA regions comprising defective copies of functional genes, the majority of which were generated by RNA- or DNA-level duplications. They exist across almost all forms of life and account for about one-quarter of the annotated genes in the human genome. Although these have been considered nonfunctional for decades, a growing number of pseudogenes have been found to be transcribed and to play crucial regulatory roles. Accumulating evidence indicates that they regulate gene expression through molecular interactions at the protein, RNA, and DNA levels. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301472X21002927
PS: JVL, i give you an advice, for free, - you constantly have to keep in mind, that Darwinists are always wrong ... they always re-think what they claimed earlier.martin_r
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @86,
First why would these “professors” take no scientific position on the source of the intelligent design?
Because there’s no scientific way to determine the source of the intelligent design. In fact, the intelligent design approach is STILL superior to the presumption of undirected random chance even if no intelligent designer was involved. Think about it. JVL @88,
And it’s a ‘better explanation? Really? Why can’t it be addressed through the methods of science? What is it about the designer that cannot be accessed via scientific methods?
For example, the Antikythera mechanism has still been studied as if it were intelligently designed even though it’s not possible to determine the intelligent designer, right? The intelligent designer of the universe and life on earth might actually be our post-human offspring (aka the ancestor simulation theory) according to Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom: https://www.thecollector.com/nick-bostrom-simulation-theory/ See whether you can follow his logic. -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
JVL @84,
Even the pseudogenes?
Yes. This is one of five or six ways that the DNA of an organism can increase in length, becoming incorporated and useful as genes. -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
JVL @82,
What exactly are you annoyed with: that the prediction that no organic material would survive for so long? And who says it did survive because of background radiation? I find this whole paragraph confusing. Perhaps you’d like to read it over and make it a bit clearer.
No, I’m not annoyed. Fossils were all supposed to be minerals that filled in the hollow spaces left by dead organisms buried in silt. Yet, many organisms 100+ million years old are preserved with organic material including red blood cells and “stretchy” tissues despite being cooked by background radiation for 100+ million years. It should be undifferentiated powder and this can be simulated experimentally in a lab using an equivalent amount of radiation while controlling the temperature. Try reading the paragraph slowly out loud. -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
JVL at 88, The current Marxist-Atheist state within a state wants to control education and the media, and spread its messages. We, meaning Christians, can ignore those messages, meaning I hear them, I understand them and by understanding them, reject them. So, for kids in school right now, here are the choices: 1) Evolution. Nothing made you. Man, meaning mankind, was an accident. Evolutionary psychology tells you that you are just doing things to survive, that's all. 2) Intelligent Design. Someone, whether you think it's aliens or God, and I do think it's God because there is no evidence for intelligent alien beings similar to ourselves, made you. You were made for a reason. Each life is precious. AND Evolution: Life only looks designed, it is not actually designed. Intelligent Design: Living things are actually designed. They are not the result of random randomness.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Let me see if I can translate 91, "modern science, cosmology, biology, etc.., inescapably, points to God and CD doesn't like it." There, all better. :) Moreover to tweak CD's nose even more, not only does modern science, inescapably, point to God, modern science itself is dependent on presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded within the Judeo-Christian worldview.
“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.” (Bacon's inductive methodology) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA 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 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics.
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
BA77 You are completely off point. Meyer’s “stunning” conclusion merely drives home my assertion that one cannot be an ID proponent and a non-believer. The way the brain trust at DI constructed ID as being the result of a designer outside space-time, it requires an incorporeal (I.e., non-material, non-physical) designer as a matter of logical coherence. Because of that, any claim that ID stands independent of its immaterial source is indefensible.chuckdarwin
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Somebody forgot to tell Dr Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute, that Intelligent Design is suppose to be limited in its scope.
Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/ Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. Eric Metaxas and Stephen Meyer Tackle Science and God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3aoQircZeQ Bestselling authors Eric Metaxas and Stephen Meyer have a free-wheeling discussion of science, faith, and God during a special episode of "Socrates in the City" taped live at the 2022 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area in April 2022. Meyer is author of "The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe." Eric Metaxas is a radio talk show host and author of "Is Atheism Dead?" Is Atheism Dead? | Featuring Bestselling Author Eric J. Metaxas, Interviewed by Graham H. Walker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLxdWn7ntBI
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Relatd/87 Unmitigated nonsense…chuckdarwin
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Relatd: The scientific method and empirical data are presently incapable of helping to understand the identity of the designer. Thus, the scientific theory of intelligent design simply cannot identity the designer because it is not a question which can be addressed through the methods of science. And it's a 'better explanation? Really? Why can't it be addressed through the methods of science? What is it about the designer that cannot be accessed via scientific methods? You guys always reference humans as being intelligent agents capable of design but NO ONE would ever say: we cannot even attempt to identify the (human) designer of this building or car or phone or computer. I mean, just about every other historical scientist on the planet would try their damnedest to figure out who done it. And you guys just bail? Really? However, the fact that the identity of the designer is a religious question does not negate the purely scientific methods through which we can infer merely that an object was indeed designed. It's extremely pertinent because the fact that you assume the existence of some divine creator (which cannot be established via scientific methods) means you naturally default to assuming that complicated things that currently have no unguided, natural explanation are designed!! Because you assume there was a designer around! You cannot change a theological argument into a scientific one. It just doesn't work. Just be honest and straight. Why do you need to put your theology into the science classroom at all? What do you think you'll gain by doing that? I just don't understand why it matters to some of you if we all agree with your theology or not? What is the point? Do you think you're going to get some reward for convincing children that there is a loving caring God and his son (who is not him but is him, sort of) who is your personal saviour? I'm serious: why does all this matter so much to you? No one is stopping you from worshipping as you see fit. No one is marginalising you because of your beliefs. You can still vote and marry and pay taxes and run for public office and get a mortgage and holiday in Bermuda. What is it that you are fighting for?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
CD at 86, From another site: "But what happens when questions are posed to the intelligent design theorist such as, "Who is the designer?" This is surely an interesting and important question. But for the scientist, the question must be asked, "What is the explanatory scope of intelligent design theory?" or more specifically, "How much can intelligent design theory explain based upon observations which are possible from the natural world?" Intelligent design bases its inferences on observations finding the type of complexity produced by intelligent agents when they operate. As noted, when it finds this sort of complexity, it cannot infer more than the mere conclusion that life was designed. "Not identifying the nature of the designer or the methods used is not a cop-out nor does it stem from an unwillingness to be honest about motivations. It results solely from the pure empirical limitations of scientific investigation: "[The] only commitment [of intelligent design theory] is that the design in the world be empirically detectable…This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to [have] knowledge that we don't have. (Dembski, W. A., Eugenie Scott and the NCSE: Darwin's Predictable Defenders.) "The scientific method and empirical data are presently incapable of helping to understand the identity of the designer. Thus, the scientific theory of intelligent design simply cannot identity the designer because it is not a question which can be addressed through the methods of science. At this point, this question can only be answered via faith, or divine revelation, and other religious "ways of knowing." However, the fact that the identity of the designer is a religious question does not negate the purely scientific methods through which we can infer merely that an object was indeed designed. Thus, assessing the identity of the designer is essentially a religious question: "Science says we are designed through the scientific method. Religioun says we are designed because of faith or divine revelation. Both are making a similar claim via different means and methods. "Thus, scientifically, one only can state that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence. Many people may believe that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible, however these are religious claims, and presently outside the scope of scientific inquiry."relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Querius/80
The professors and others who founded ID in a joint conference did so as an alternative to Creationism. They specifically, stated that they took no scientific position on the source of the intelligent design. There are proponents of Intelligent Design of different faiths or no faith.
This is baffling for two reasons. First why would these "professors" take no scientific position on the source of the intelligent design? If, in fact, they have a "scientific position" on the source of design, that is fundamental to the "theory" and should be disclosed. Hiding the ball only foments unnecessary speculation. Second, how can someone of "no faith"--by which I assume you mean religious faith--advocate for a "theory" which explicitly invokes a supernatural or non-physical source? I've seen claims now and again in these comments that there are atheist proponents of intelligent design. But that simply cannot be because the "source" of the intelligent design (i.e., the Intelligent Designer) has to be sourced outside spacetime.chuckdarwin
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply