At The Federalist: What design can explain about life’s origins that chance can’t

Intelligence can create functional code.

That sounds like an explanation to me. It's not merely "we don't know". Silver Asiatic

Earth to Fred Hickson- Your position is not science. It's the inability of materialism, not science, to answer any questions pertaining to our existence. ID's concepts are used in genetic algorithms which use telic processes to solve problems. But I am sure that you will just ignore that, again. ET

Regarding the origin of life on Earth, origin of Earth, origin of the Universe, mainstream science can offer some partial explanations. It has answers such as when and how. It can't answer why anything, in the philosophical sense. Critics of mainstream science here and elsewhere seem not to realize these limitations and demand mainstream science provide answers for everything and when those answers are not forthcoming, use that as an excuse to dismiss what science can tell us. Let me post a few examples from upthread:

The genetic code doesn’t change on the fly, Fred. Perhaps you are confusing DNA for the genetic code. Please explain the origin of life. Life requires genetic code. Intelligence can create functional code. Natural causes cannot. ...there is no such thing as ‘theistic evolution’ because there is no room for God. No place for Him to work. Well Fred, the genetic code is intelligently designed if we follow science. So that would mean that the OoL was intelligently designed. At least we have that. You and yours only have denying reality. So, lifeless chemicals accidentally combined one day and produced life. And even if this was possible, how did that life survive? What did it eat? And if it could not reproduce, it would be the only life. So where did it get the information needed to reproduce?

I see a common theme here. All seem to hint at the inability of science to explain life, the universe and everything. Well folks, you are (mixed metaphors coming) pushing an open door, your vigorous chase has caught the car. Mainstream science cannot explain everything. So, as I asked earlier, who does have an explanation for life, the universe and everything. There are plenty of religious ones, though they tend to follow culture, ethnicity, political outlook and have an emotional basis. Fine, I have no issue with that, we all need to live in hope, retain ambition, look forward to a better future. I've asked a few times already but I'll repeat: what does the ID concept bring to scientific endeavor? Fred Hickson

Without intelligent design all there is to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science. ET

Seversky at 63, Natural processes? So, lifeless chemicals accidentally combined one day and produced life. And even if this was possible, how did that life survive? What did it eat? And if it could not reproduce, it would be the only life. So where did it get the information needed to reproduce? relatd

Relatd/44

Seversky, Please explain the origin of life

I have no explanation. My position is that if there is no intelligent agency that created life then natural processes are the better alternative. Seversky

ET I would love to know how

Science can't help you. If the painting is so amazing ... Sandy

No coded information processing systems in that backyard. But, yes, I do understand what you are saying. And I have thought of it. Myself and PaV once discussed interventions and if they were really necessary. ET

without intelligent agency

No one said it wasn’t done by an intelligence.

How was that front-loaded?

It’s easy to imagine a series of domino like processes that end up with the necessary end results. If a guy can do this in his back yard, what can the creator of the universe do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORKJ7MNgZRY Aside: I’m not saying this was how it was done, at the creation of the universe but it was possible to do it this way. But how it was done/when is saying something about intentions. jerry

I would love to know how the information to produce the coded information processing systems that rule living organisms came to be without intelligent agency intervention. How was that front-loaded? ET

Jerry ID says nothing about this.

:) I asked Jerry, not ID. It's ok to have theological opinions . Look at darwinists they have only theological opinions : "chemical created life" or "common descent." They attribute to matter some magical powers and they call it science. So basically this is a theological context. :) Sandy

This view has no evidence that a designer exists at all.

Absolutely not true! Start with the fine tuning of the universe. Then add Earth. You then have the environment for advanced life no matter how it appeared. Where did the universe and Earth come from? Answer: An all powerful creator. The tinkering creator is not necessary to explain either scenario, OOL or Evolution. It does not however, say the creator did not tinker. Now ask yourself why would the all powerful creator do it one way and not the other? People here want to involve religion in their beliefs. That’s ok but it is not ID so don’t assume they are the same and then act as if they are. Also from what I understand this view of ID is consistent with theistic evolutionists. They accept ID in the sense of the fine tuning of the universe. I’m sure what they believe about Earth. jerry

At The Federalist: What Design Can Explain About Life’s Origins That Chance Can’t

Everything, as chance cannot explain anything about life's origins. And only intelligent agency volition can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. ET

Well Fred, the genetic code is intelligently designed if we follow science. So that would mean that the OoL was intelligently designed. At least we have that. You and yours only have denying reality. ET

I posted earlier that there is no such thing as 'theistic evolution' because there is no room for God. No place for Him to work. I also posted that the Catholic Church can do what science alone cannot: combine various forms of knowledge together. It appears you missed that. From the document Communion and Stewardship, part 69: 'But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2). ' relatd

Relatd

That’s ridiculous. How did any code appear in living things? How does this code work?

The theistic evolution view (not mine) is that the code appeared through random combination of chemicals. That created the first life (RNA world) and first functional code. This then was the operating system for the development of all life after that - plants, trees, birds, fish, insects and humans. Everything came from that first random chemical combination. So where is the "theism" in this view? They just say that God made everything to work that way. I have said that this is irrefutable but it's not really. "God made everything to look like it came from a random, natural cause". But I object! Because "God made me to think that a random natural cause could not produce the effect." So, God made it look both ways? As if Darwin was correct and also as if Darwin was wrong? That's where theistic evolution doesn't work. It assumes that materialist science is correct. But I can just as easily say "God gave me the insight to realize that materialist science is wrong". That's an impossible contradiction to solve. So, theistic evolution, attempting at an easy reconciliation ends up with something absurd. Silver Asiatic

FH

Well I appreciate that you are reading me with an open mind. I’m not any kind of anti-theist and I am puzzled by some of the more rabid responses to my comments.

It's good that you're not anti-theist. It indicates open-mindedness on your part. Whether DNA code, for example, can be successfully mutated to accomplish what is required for the development of the biological forms on earth is another question. I can't see how even intelligently-designed niches could make it happen. Mutations would still need the creative power to build all of the features of organisms. I think Behe's arguments show that there's not enough time for that to happen. The designer could create niches that require adaptations within species. But the very same niches allow for radically different species - including contradictory features to exist. Organisms that move fast and slow or don't have any movement (plants). Organisms that fly and those that crawl. Multiple means of distribution of seeds or reproduction methods. Multiple defenses against predators, insects, bacteria, poisons - all different in the same niches. Silver Asiatic

SA at 50, That's ridiculous. How did any code appear in living things? How does this code work? You start a car with no driver and send it down the road. How long till it crashes? relatd

Sandy

“Your creator look like a darwinian evolutionary biologist to me(not an epitome of intelligence ) ?”

That's the problem with theistic evolution. Whatever role the designer has is completely invisible. There is no evidence of anything except blind material causes. This view has no evidence that a designer exists at all. Silver Asiatic

Life requires genetic code. Intelligence can create functional code. Natural causes cannot. Silver Asiatic

Please explain the origin of life.

Let's open that up to everyone! My position: I have no idea. I'm skeptical anyone here can deliver anything more substantial but... Surprise me. Fred Hickson

Your creator has enough intelligence to comunicate with humans to tell them the truth about creation or is a hidden distant impassive creator

ID says nothing about this. Strange description - intelligent and powerful enough to create universe but tongue tied? ID says nothing about communicating with humans but obviously could have and maybe still is doing so. Not in the purview of ID. jerry

Jerry I as still postulating the same remarkable intelligence but asking some other questions about how it actually happened.

Your creator has enough intelligence to comunicate with humans to tell them the truth about creation or is a hidden distant impassive creator ? Sandy

Nothing

The sum total of what Seversky has added in over 13 years. Be careful as ChuckDarwin has actually got one thing correct. So he is way ahead of you now. Of course, you probably count that as a mistake on his part and now you are clearly the best anti ID commenter here. jerry

Seversky, Please explain the origin of life. relatd

At The Federalist: What Design Can Explain About Life’s Origins That Chance Can’t

Nothing? Seversky

But you are the one who thinks that a Designer doesn’t have enough intelligence to create an organism directly and instantly and not over billions and billions and billions of years. Does an intelligent mind have to make billions of years of trial and error to figure out ?

I never said anything like this. Just the opposite. The process could have been designed from the beginning. No trial and error about it. So you are making things up and it is actually you who are saying that the designer had to constantly make adjustments. I am saying that if it happened that way, it was truly a much more remarkable intelligence than the one you postulate. I as still postulating the same remarkable intelligence but asking some other questions about how it actually happened. I suggest you read what I write instead of making things up. Did the creation of the universe contain a process in one small part of that creation that was like a billion dominos falling to create a remarkable end point. If you don't believe the creator was this intelligent, who actually believes in the more intelligent and powerful creator. jerry

"But you are the one who thinks that a Designer doesn’t have enough intelligence to create an organism directly and instantly and not over billions and billions and billions of years. Does an intelligent mind have to make billions of years of trial and error to figure out ? Your creator look like a darwinian evolutionary biologist to me(not an epitome of intelligence ) ?" Well said. relatd

Fred Hickson:

So it’s a relief to know that living organisms are nothing like human-designed computers and software.

The genetic code doesn't change on the fly, Fred. Perhaps you are confusing DNA for the genetic code.

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal."- Richard Dawkins

ET

Jerry No one knows how life originated

Indeed no darwinian evolutionist knows that because they wait for plane in the train-station. Maybe tomorrow will come.

Jerry to say that the creator of the universe couldn’t figure out a natural way of doing it is being blind to the creator’s intelligence and power.

But you are the one who thinks that a Designer doesn't have enough intelligence to create an organism directly and instantly and not over billions and billions and billions of years. Does an intelligent mind have to make billions of years of trial and error to figure out ? Your creator look like a darwinian evolutionary biologist to me(not an epitome of intelligence ) :) Sandy