BBC cell film pays tribute to design in nature without knowing it

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2021

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

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

The Cell Secret Immune System – Secret Universe: The Hidden Life Of The Cell – BBC Two

To think it all just happened requires more faith than to think there is an intelligence underlying nature that enables it.

Comments

JVL:
ID assumes there was some highly intelligent and talented designer around at
Wrong again. The evidence demands that a highly intelligent and talented designer was around. And to refute that claim all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what we observe. But you can't because you are a scientifically illiterate infant. No one even knows how to test the claims of materialism. Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID. How pathetic is that?ET_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Well then, since you’ve already declared design has been detected, ID can shut up shop.
Your willful ignorance is not an argument. Your scientific illiteracy is not an argument. ID is not only about detecting design. You have been told this numerous times and yet you choose to act like an infant.ET_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Concealed Citizen: The question really is, what explains a given artifact the best, with the least assumptions, etc? Inference of the best explanation, and all that. ID assumes there was some highly intelligent and talented designer around at . . . what time was it? And they did what exactly? With what tools? And the energy came from where? And they left no detritus, waste, spent fuel, broken tools, notes, documentation . . . nothing at all? That's a lot of assumptions don't you think?JVL_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

ET: D is about the DESIGN. Grow up. Well then, since you've already declared design has been detected, ID can shut up shop. This blog has no purpose, The Discovery Institute can stop publishing books and podcasts and blog posts. Yup, no need for detecting design anymore, it's been found.JVL_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

.
JVL: No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) is there that there was an intelligent designer present
You’ve been given the evidence and have been completely unable to show that the evidence is anything but 100% coherent and accurate — i.e. it is well-documented in the literature via a) recorded predictions, b) experimental confirmations, and c) secondary physical analysis. These observations are not only universal and uncontroversial, but you have already acknowledged their scientific and historical verity. And it is not merely the factual presence of the observations themselves that you agree with, but also (and in particular) the logic of drawing a design inference from those specific observations. You, in fact, do it yourself without hesitation; that is, you posit a previously unknown intelligence when and if these specific observations are confirmed to exist, as they already are in biology. So, on the one hand you want to believe you are a rational person who “believes in science” and believes in the power of methodical observation. But yet on the other hand, if you actually allowed yourself to do so, then you would be forced to acknowledge something you simply don’t want to concede. You then publicly manage this glowing contradiction by applying a gratuitous double standard to the evidence — which is every bit as obvious and unmistakable as the contradiction it is intended to conceal. This is a real problem for you, and you have thus far used several unscrupulous tactics (which can be listed here, if need be) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the problem.
JVL, the mechanism required to organize the origin of life is well known. The physical conditions of that mechanism are well-documented in the literature, and have been explained to you on multiple occasions. It is a matter of historical record that the mechanism was first predicted to exist through logical analysis, and subsequently confirmed through experimental result. The critical observations are not even controversial. When confronted with these facts, you respond with a clear intent to avoid the conversation and protect your worldview from science and reason. You accomplish this protectionist sleight-of-hand through the application of flawed reasoning, which you then refuse to address. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
Upright BiPed_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

JVL: No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) All putative design can be contested. That's a false demarcation. The question really is, what explains a given artifact the best, with the least assumptions, etc? Inference of the best explanation, and all that. Now, if you think that proteins and cells came about by chance and necessity, given what we know about 'natural laws' then it's incumbent upon you to make your case. Give it your best shot. I'm listening. I really am.Concealed Citizen_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. JVL:
Other opinions are available.
What is said is a FACT. Check your peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.
If life cannot arise spontaneously then where did your designer come from?
ID is about the DESIGN. Grow up. Reality dictates that the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the processes is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. No one knows who designed and built Stonehenge. Humans are a what, not a who. So perhaps you should get an education an stop being such a scientifically illiterate troll. Anyone can discuss the designer. What they have to say has to be taken for what it is, though. Knowing the Wright brothers doesn't help anyone understand airplanes. So I don't understand your obsession. And the people who contest the design don't have anything to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed. Materialism is supposed to be the mechanistic position and yet you and yours don't know how and when. It's as if you are a hypocrite all the way down.ET_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

William J Murray: So, those kinds of questions are irrelevant as far as a logical determination of most likely explanation for a thing. IOW, the coroner doesn’t have to identify the person to find that homicide is the most likely cause of a death, and certainly doesn’t have to name the parents and grandparents of the killer. Surely part of determining that homicide is the most likely cause of death is the likely presence of a murderer. If there was no one around to commit the murder then it can't be homicide can it? Someone with the abilities has to be there at the pertinent time. Lots and lots of people believe that the humans around at the time were incapable of building the Pyramids or Stonehenge; they must have had help from aliens. But, if there were no aliens around (and we have zero other evidence they were around) then it must have been the humans. No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) is there that there was an intelligent designer present at . . . what time was it again? And what did they do exactly? And that's not even getting to the how and why. I'll stop now 'cause I know no one is even going to try and answer those questions. It seems to be against the unstated rules of ID that you don't talk about the designer. You don't publicly speculate about the designer. You loudly proclaim such questions are not the point. BUT, if ID is a science then surely such questions are fair and proper to ask. But, like I said, I'll stop now.JVL_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

JVL, Please note, I did not use the term "design" or "designer." I just stuck to the facts as we currently know them, without jumping to any unwarranted conclusions, which is why I used the term "likely" Since all observed cases of instantiated code are accomplished, originally (no matter how many copies are made,) by an intelligent agent, then the likely original source of the instantiated code necessary for life was (or is) an intelligent agent. Further questions about that agency are separate, such as what form it was in, how it did it, etc. The reason these questions are irrelevant in the exercise above is for the same reason the same kind of questions aren't relevant when discussing the origin of anything. Let's say, for example, that one says that the physical laws of the universe, and the size of the universe, are sufficient to explain instantiations of a coded system. Where did those laws come from? How did they come to be? That line of questioning is, ultimately, infinitely regressive, whether intelligent agency or natural laws acting on matter is given as the answer. So, those kinds of questions are irrelevant as far as a logical determination of most likely explanation for a thing. IOW, the coroner doesn't have to identify the person to find that homicide is the most likely cause of a death, and certainly doesn't have to name the parents and grandparents of the killer. Similarly, it isn't necessary to identify what caused a flood in order to make a determination that a flood likely caused patterns one sees in the terrain. The identity of the killer and the cause of the flood are not necessary to make the determination of what likely caused the effects in question. Sure, it could have been something else, but that's why we're using the term "likely."William J Murray_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: Logical conclusion: the coded systems in all life as we know it was likely created and instantiated by an intelligent agency. Questions about if that intelligent being was itself coded, or alive, or where it came from are irrelevant to the above. One of the core ID arguments is that in our experience design must come from an intelligent agent. An intelligent agent that can use/manipulate energy and natural resources. In our experience that only happens when the agent has a physical manifestation which enables it to interact with the environment. In our experience, corporeal forms come from other corporeal forms. If you want to assume or assert design without the kind of designer we have experience with then you've got some 'splanin' to do: how can design come to be implemented without a physical designer? You can choose to not ask any questions after you think you've detected design where others don't see it. But they are fair questions and, in science, it's okay to ask questions. Scientists are curious about how things work and like finding unanswered questions to work on. No designer means no design. So . . . what kind of designer are you hypothesising and are you sure such designers exist?JVL_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

The logic of what the current best explanation here is readily available, even to a layman. We've only ever seen the creation of instantiated coded systems by intelligent agency (us). All life as we know it and have found so far require an instantiated coded system. Logical conclusion: the coded systems in all life as we know it was likely created and instantiated by an intelligent agency. Questions about if that intelligent agency was itself coded, or alive, or where it came from are irrelevant to the above.William J Murray_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

ET: All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. Other opinions are available. Check your local library. If life cannot arise spontaneously then where did your designer come from? Is it just designers all the way down?JVL_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. JVL will never consider all available data because it refutes his beliefs.ET_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

JVL:
We may never know if life arose spontaneously on Earth or arrived via a comet or asteroid.
We know life did not arise spontaneously anywhere.
Both options are possible; I’m not sure we have enough data to decide to be honest.
Total nonsense. Neither option is possible as imagination is neither science nor evidence. And we have plenty of data to say that life did not arise spontaneously anywhere. Only denial and willful ignorance say otherwise.ET_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: You have two Darwinian-scientists who claim pretty different things… How a Darwinian-layman knows who to trust ? I would love to understand that … I can't speak for anyone else but I try to understand both arguments and their supporting evidence and then come to some kind of conclusion about which is more probable. BUT, since all scientific knowledge is provisional you have to always remember that new data may change your view. In the end they may both be wrong. It's not a matter of picking one answer and sticking with it. For working scientists deciding a paradigm is more likely means they will focus further research in that direction. And they know they may be barking up a dead tree. It seems to bother you a lot that scientists keep changing their minds. Isn't that how it should be when new results and evidence come to light? Shouldn't we always be open to shifting our beliefs when better ones come along? Personally, with origin of life stuff, I think the evidence and data we have is so tenuous right now that I prefer to say: we don't know, instead of coming down on one side or another. But I have to say, the probability of some life form being able to survive thousands if not millions of years on an interstellar journey is bordering on miracle territory. But hey, I could be wrong; tomorrow an asteroid from outside the solar system might land on Earth and have some living alien life on or in it. In which case I would change my mind. You should always consider all the available data.JVL_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

JVL, the following is is the first thing you wrote that makes sense: " I would think it would be incredibly hard for some living thing to survive an interstellar trip that would have to take a hideously long period of time" Touche... So it seems, you tend to BELIEVE in that Earth-OOL scenario... and, you support it by the claim of the Darwinian-scientists who unlike the other Darwinian-scientists think, that OOL on Earth is still a plausible hypothesis - no need for miracles. OK. Now, my question: You have two Darwinian-scientists who claim pretty different things... How a Darwinian-layman knows who to trust ? I would love to understand that ... (i hope, it is not that you trust the ones you like more, because they say what you wish to hear) So, please explain, how a Darwinian-layman makes this kind of decision, who to trust ?martin_r_{March 15, 2021
March
03
Mar
15
15
2021
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: both options are possible ? Yup. How comes ? Don’t you believe in scientists, do you believe in miracles ? I've never witnessed a miracle and I haven't seen evidence to convince me any have occurred. (in that article, your Darwinian scientists just told you, that in 4 billions years it would be a miracle, did you forget?) But you can find other scientists who this it is possible without being a miracle. Like I said: we don't know, we may never know. I don't know enough about the evidence to have a strong conviction either way. EXCEPT . . . It's a long, long ways between solar systems. I would think it would be incredibly hard for some living thing to survive an interstellar trip that would have to take a hideously long period of time. But, maybe we'll find something that can survive such a journey. I hope the science becomes a lot clearer in my lifetime 'cause I'd love to know.JVL_{March 14, 2021
March
03
Mar
14
14
2021
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

JVL, both options are possible ? How comes ? Don't you believe in scientists, do you believe in miracles ? (in that article, your Darwinian scientists just told you, that in 4 billions years it would be a miracle, did you forget?)martin_r_{March 14, 2021
March
03
Mar
14
14
2021
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: we may never know what ? We may never know if life arose spontaneously on Earth or arrived via a comet or asteroid. So do you BELIEVE that life emerged on Earth or was seeded here ? You have to believe in the first or the second scenario – in your Darwinian naturalistic World there is no other option, or is it ? I am pretty confused so please explain … Both options are possible; I'm not sure we have enough data to decide to be honest. Not yet anyway. We'll see . . . . hopefully!JVL_{March 14, 2021
March
03
Mar
14
14
2021
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

JVL, we may never know what ? So do you BELIEVE that life emerged on Earth or was seeded here ? You have to believe in the first or the second scenario - in your Darwinian naturalistic World there is no other option, or is it ? I am pretty confused so please explain ...martin_r_{March 14, 2021
March
03
Mar
14
14
2021
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

We know how life didn't get started on earth. We know there isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. So a spontaneous origin of life can be dismissedET_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: OOL in 4 billions of years = a miracle OOL in 13 billions of years = plausible is it what you suggesting? I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying that the authors of the paper you cited seemed to think that it was more plausible that life on Earth was seeded from some other place given the time constraints. You seem to have an argument with them, not with me. I think no one knows how life started on Earth. There are ideas and guesses but no one knows. We may never know.JVL_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

JVL did i get this right? OOL in 4 billions of years = a miracle OOL in 13 billions of years = plausible is it what you suggesting?martin_r_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. So, according to Hitchens, the assertion of nature producing a living organism can be dismissed. Scientists will have an easier time showing that nature produced Stonehenge than they will trying to find a spontaneous origin of life. It has been a tragic comedy watching people try.ET_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

JVL:
I think it does because IF life originated on some other planet in some other solar system (and just happened to get transplanted to Earth via some cosmic accident) then it seems to me that the planet where life originated is the special chosen one. Why start life on one planet in hopes that it somehow moves to the chosen place? That doesn’t make any sense.
It's a good thing that panspermia doesn't require things to just happen. But terraforming is a real concept. So you would have life on one habitable planet and it seeks out other possible systems to start colonizing. And terraforming is part of that.ET_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: again, how panspermia solves the OOL issue ? So now you believe that first cell evolved somewhere else in the universe ? so now you BELIEVE that MIRACLES (the mainstream scientists talked about) are happening SOMEWHERE else in the universe ? I didn't say it did solve the problem. In fact, if you read some of my comments to ET you will notice that I explicitly say it just kicks the can down the road. But the article isn't saying what you think it's saying since the authors explicitly say that to expect that life came from non-life in the available time frame was akin to believing a miracle. They didn't say it couldn't happen, just not that fast. And they did not jump to a design inference. and, as you can see, there are Darwinists and Darwninists. Obviously, some Darwinists think, that OOL (on EARTH) would be a miracle. When creationists say the same = creationists are stupid religious fanatics and don’t know the Darwinian ‘science’ … Can you comment on that ? Look, the bit of the article you cite says: an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. So, they are saying they favour panspermia as far as the beginning of life on Earth is concerned as opposed to it arising in situ. I haven't read the whole article but that statement does not rule out the possibility that life came from non-life someplace else over a longer period of time. I don't understand why you insist on being so rude and defamatory when I'm just pointing out things about an article you brought up. If the article doesn't actually say what you think it says that's not my fault. It's obvious that no one really knows how or if life on Earth started here or was imported. People have their ideas and preferences but no one actually knows. Some scientists have proposed various scenarios but not a one of them has been shown to be very likely. Not yet anyway. We'll see, lots of work yet to do.JVL_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

JVL, and, as you can see, there are Darwinists and Darwninists. Obviously, some Darwinists think, that OOL (on EARTH) would be a miracle. When creationists say the same = creationists are stupid religious fanatics and don't know the Darwinian 'science' ... Can you comment on that ?martin_r_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

JVL, you (and the scientists) are not very smart, are you ? again, how panspermia solves the OOL issue ? So now you believe that first cell evolved somewhere else in the universe ? so now you BELIEVE that MIRACLES (the mainstream scientists talked about) are happening SOMEWHERE else in the universe ?martin_r_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: Why are you changing the subject to panspermia? I don’t get how panspermia answers this miracle-questions… did you mean, that somewhere else in universe miracles happen ? The paper you cited hypothesises that panspermia solves the problem of how life came to be on Earth. From the abstract:
In our view the totality of the multifactorial data and critical analyses assembled by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe and their many colleagues since the 1960s leads to a very plausible conclusion – life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind.
Didn't you even read the abstract? Or the title: Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?JVL_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

JVL you Darwinists never answer questions, you always change the subject... i put you a simple question, let me repeat it: how a mentally healthy adult person can BELIEVE that all this somehow self-designed? (after all what we know now in 21st century) - that is why I cited a MAINSTREAM DARWINIAN ARTICLE, where the authors/researchers talking about miracles. Did you even get that ? Why are you changing the subject to panspermia? I don't get how panspermia answers this miracle-questions... did you mean, that somewhere else in universe miracles happen ?martin_r_{March 13, 2021
March
03
Mar
13
13
2021
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply