Door Number Two: The existence of evil is the Most Powerful Argument

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 28, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In my previous post I discussed David Barash’s op-ed piece in the New York Timesreviewing the usual religious beliefs that motivate evolutionary thinking. Barash’s piece is not peculiar, it is standard evolutionary reasoning. For instance, another evolution professor, Jerry Coyne, responded today, in support of Barash’s arguments. Coyne explains that he agrees with Barash “100%” and adds a few additional comments of his own. Read more

Comments

Oh, hi A_b/WS. You've been off for a while. -QQuerius_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Maybe he's been banned?not_querius_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Apparently Evolve got really busy and doesn't have time to address the philosophical choices I'm offering in response to his objections. Hmmm. I know. Maybe I'll save my post and present it to him the next time he pops up. ;-) -QQuerius_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Barash has the expression of a Cocker Spaniel. I was trying to think what he reminded me of in that photo. Havng his tongue hang out would have completed the picture nicely. Strange that because of their 'reverse pathetic fallacy', it's virtually impossible to insult Darwinists by comparing them with our dumb chums.Axel_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Interesting to see the photo, almost a portrait, of David Barash, beaming in a way that seems rather inanely exaggerated, next to his dog, an Alsatian/German Shepherd, which, contrastingly, looks rather thoughtful. Barash may have a point, you know.Axel_{October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Evolve is far from the only Darwinist to use theological argumentation to try to make the 'scientific' case for Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself relied primarily on theological argumentation, instead of empirical evidence, in his book 'Origin Of Species',,,
Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): ,,,, 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
And subsequent Darwinists, to this day, have employed theologically based argumentation to try to make the supposedly 'scientific' case for Darwinism,,,
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) – 148,413 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
Contrary to what Dr. Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism, but is, in fact, a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims!,,, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can produce a single protein, or a molecular machine, much less can they produce the unfathomed levels of complexity we find in life,, But what is interesting in Evolve's, and other Darwinists theological argumentation is the emotional appeal of it. ,,, And the emotional appeal of the argument is all they have since the logic of the argument from evil, as C.S. Lewis has clearly shown, implodes in on itself,,,
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
,,,Yet, as stated before, the emotional appeal of the argument from evil is what Evolve, and other Darwinists, are counting on to presuade people that they may be right that. For instance of the emotion appeal that Evolve tries to employ in his argument, please note the term 'grotesque violence' that he uses when he makes his theological argument against a 'loving and caring' God,,
"Cruel and unjust from the viewpoint of a loving and caring God, as he’s portrayed in popular culture and as most believers consider God to be.,,, The concept of such a God is totally incompatible with the grotesque violence inherent in nature."
But apparently what Evolve completely fails to realize is that the grotesque violence in the crucifixion of Christ is the very method that God chose to redeem mankind from sin and death with! Thus, apparently unbeknownst to Evolve, it is, in fact, completely compatible for 'a loving and caring God' to use grotesque violence to achieve his desired purpose of redeeming mankind from sin and death.
Shroud Of Turin - 3 Dimensional Hologram Reveals Words ‘The Lamb’ - video https://vimeo.com/97156784
Music and Verse:
Alive - Natalie Grant http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX 1 Peter 1:18-20 ,,,you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world,,,
bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Evolve, You're missing bornagain77's point. You stated
Cruel and unjust from the viewpoint of a loving and caring God, as he’s portrayed in popular culture and as most believers consider God to be.
From your perspective, since there isn't any "loving and caring God," the terms you used, "cruel and unjust," have absolutely no meaning and should only be in your vocabulary in an anachronistic, pre-scientific sense. With Darwinism, you're left only with survival and reproduction (and the social norms that facilitate them). Check out B.F. Skinner. Now if you understood the scriptures, you would know where cruelty and injustice comes from---not from God. God is in process of allowing the demonstration of the pathologies arising from human selfishness, stupidity, jealousies, lusts, and so on come to an end. And God has also provided a way out from guilt and judgment. But instead, you hold God accountable for the consequences of peoples' free will decisions, without interfering with yours. Would you want a "kind and loving God" to stop you from any potentially harmful actions or choices? You light up a cigarette, but you can't put it to your mouth. You start to say something hurtful, but the words can't come out. You start watching some porn, but your screen goes blank. Or maybe your "kind and loving God" should let everyone do as they pleased, but has to make sure that magically there are no bad consequences for anyone. But everyone still dies, so what's the point? -QQuerius_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

The same genes also contribute to widely different designs such as humans, flies, fish and worms! Humans and chickens are about 60% identical at the DNA level, though you probably couldn’t tell that with a cursory glance at the two species!
I'm starting to lose your point here. The genetic structure of chickens are unique to them. That's what we mean by the phrase "the design required for a chicken already exists in the DNA". Large percentages can be similar to other species, as you mention -- and there's more than just DNA at work, but DNA in general dictates what will develop from a chicken embryo. That's why we can predict what a fertilized chicken egg will produce. The fact that very similar DNA combinations produce strikingly different organisms is more of an argument for design since it shows the power of those genetic programs.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Evolve you state,, "Cruel and unjust from the viewpoint of a loving and caring God," which boils down to,, “atheists have their theology, which is basically: "God, if he existed, wouldn't do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn't (do it that way)." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/creationists_th085691.html In case you have not noticed Evolve, you ARE NOT God! supplemental notes: "Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God in order to deny Him." Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/09/stephen-hawking-no-hay-ningun-dios-soy.html supplemental note: The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, "Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine." What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evilbornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

///You haven’t addressed bornagain77?s challenge:/// I normally skip his posts. But since you asked... ///Evolve, and exactly how are you able to form this idea that the world is cruel and unjust in the first place if there is, as you hold in your materialist/atheist worldview, no real objective, transcendent, standard of good that has been departed from? /// Cruel and unjust from the viewpoint of a loving and caring God, as he's portrayed in popular culture and as most believers consider God to be. People pray and try to appease God to win him over and ensure a better life for themselves both on earth and in heaven. The concept of such a God is totally incompatible with the grotesque violence inherent in nature.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

///The design required for a chicken already exists in the DNA which codes for a chicken to develop from the embryo./// It's not exclusive to chickens. The same genes also contribute to widely different designs such as humans, flies, fish and worms! Humans and chickens are about 60% identical at the DNA level, though you probably couldn't tell that with a cursory glance at the two species! Now, what does that tell you? The so-called DNA code is not set in stone, its fallout is decided by the context in which it operates - how it interacts with other molecules in its environment. We understand this, which is why we can predict what certain genes would do under given conditions, and manipulate them to create chickens with teeth, or flies with legs on their heads or fish sprouting rudimentary limbs! This is because everything DNA does is chemistry, governed by natural principles, much like how molecules in the air or water react. If you don't feel hard-pressed to invoke magical designers to explain atmospheric gas composition, then there's no reason to do that for life either.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Evolve, You haven't addressed bornagain77's challenge:
Evolve, and exactly how are you able to form this idea that the world is cruel and unjust in the first place if there is, as you hold in your materialist/atheist worldview, no real objective, transcendent, standard of good that has been departed from?
-QQuerius_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

We’re not talking just about humans, but about all of nature. The ruthlessness in nature is not about “some freedom to make mistakes”. It’s all about pitiless indifference and terrible suffering.
Again, I think you're overstating. I don't see all of nature in a state of lack-of-pity, indifference and terrible suffering. To lack pity means you know what pity is. To know indifference means you know what caring, empathy and compassion is. To think that all of nature is undergoing terrible suffering is to be omniscient. Is my front lawn suffering because dandilions are growing in it? Are the dandilions suffering because they are going to seed? You're judging the condition of nature from some basis - a god-like perspective. Are you pitiless and indifferent to everyone around you? I can't imagine that you are. So, already you'd have to explain why there is compassion, why there is order, why there is harmony and cooperation. Of course, evolution supposedly explains all of those contradictions. But you're more correct to take the hard-line Darwinian view that nature became diversified because there is a constant war for survival and every species is suffering brutal competition to overcome extinction. You'd be more correct with that, but it still would make no sense and be totally unrealistic. Why does any species care if it goes extinct? If all of nature is nothing but terrible suffering, why struggle to live? Death and extinction is obviously preferable. You just cannot reconcile this with a benevolent creator as most believers hold.
The challenge for creationists is to pin God down to a set of principles. Define him. Then and only then can we test what God is likely to do, and whether our observations of nature are compatible with him.
I think I've shown that nature does not reflect the view you've given.
Otherwise, invoking an abstract God is a futile exercise because he is indistinguishable from what one expects in a random, unguided, unsupervised, natural world.
No, we wouldn't expect order, design, harmony, purpose or social collaboration in a random, unguided world. We wouldn't expect intelligence. We might be able to expect chaos of matter -- but even that couldn't be sustained without ordered, predictable natural laws (where did they come from?) I think you have to be careful and not borrow from theism to build what you think is a random, unguided world. You really have to start from nothing and then give a good reason why anything would emerge from that. Even with matter and natural laws (which are not random, thus you have to explain that), you don't provide a reason why things struggle to survive. What is the purpose?
Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
Nature can and does produce DNA by the truckloads – in each and every cell on the planet, unaided and unguided.
No, cells, with existing DNA, produce DNA. Nature has never been observed to produce DNA.Joe_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

drc466: Now, to anybody but an evolutionist, this must mean that all of the design required for a chicken already exists in the embryo. There is no “design arising”
The design required for a chicken already exists in the DNA which codes for a chicken to develop from the embryo.
Evolve: No, the design is NOT already there. What’s already there is a collection of molecules.
Interesting answer. It's just a collection of molecules with no design - no genetic program to develop a chicken. I had never heard that before.
The design is a fallout of a chain of events or processes that’s contingent upon the environment in which the molecules interact.
The design occurs after the molecules interact with the environment? So we can't determine that a chicken embryo will produce a chicken based on the design built into the embryo?Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

/// Now, to anybody but an evolutionist, this must mean that all of the design required for a chicken already exists in the embryo./// No, the design is NOT already there. What’s already there is a collection of molecules. The design is a fallout of a chain of events or processes that’s contingent upon the environment in which the molecules interact. None of these events require supernatural explanations, NONE. We can manipulate any step in between and predict what the outcome would be. ///where did the design built into the embryo come from”?/// From nature. From natural contingencies. As I said, the whole ID enterprise rests on the completely bogus notion that design requires a designer. It doesn’t. Natural processes produce design - everything from stones to mountains to planets to life.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

///That’s the assumption – unproven at this point…. genetic-programming than merely to chemical reactions/// Unproven in which universe? We can work with life’s molecules, such as DNA, in the lab. They fall into distinct classes of chemicals that have typical chemical properties and undergo typical chemical reactions. It’s all chemistry. Period. ///And yet nature cannot produce DNA./// Again, in which universe?! Nature can and does produce DNA by the truckloads - in each and every cell on the planet, unaided and unguided.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Evolve,
Everyday we witness design arising on its own by purely natural processes. Humans developing from a single cell, a seed sprouting into a plant which grows into a tree, a shapeless chicken embryo taking the shape of a chicken…all these happen right before our eyes with NO supernatural intervention or design engineer as far as we can see.
Take a chicken embryo. Let it grow. What does it become? A chicken. Take another. Let it grow. What does it become? Another chicken. Take a third. Let it grow. Another frickin' chickin'. Ad infinitum. Now, to anybody but an evolutionist, this must mean that all of the design required for a chicken already exists in the embryo. There is no "design arising" - the design is already there (you get an F on this assignment). So, again, to anyone but an evolutionist, the sensible, logical question is, "where did the design built into the embryo come from"? Well, according to an evolutionist,
As we all know, evolution dispelled this most powerful argument for God when Darwin showed that “design-like” features could arise from a purely naturalistic process.
Lie.drc466_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Evolve at 30, The challenge for Darwinists is to provide empirical evidence for Darwinism, such as say the generation of one novel protein domain by unguided material processes, and to quit relying on twisted theological argumentation to try to make their case for Darwinism. i.e. In case you do not understand, Just because you don't like God, nor the way He made the world, is not scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution!bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Evolve, since you have mentioned chicken embryos twice now, I think video clip from 'Flight: The Genius Of Birds' might interest you: FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic Development - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto I really want to know how that is done in completely 'natural' terms. Begin your protein by protein explanation as to how that all comes together 'naturally' and I will not stop you until you get to something you can't explain 'naturally' such as say, your first protein.bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

///There is some control and some freedom. It’s a trust-based relationship – letting the kids have enough freedom to make mistakes./// We're not talking just about humans, but about all of nature. The ruthlessness in nature is not about "some freedom to make mistakes". It's all about pitiless indifference and terrible suffering. You just cannot reconcile this with a benevolent creator as most believers hold. To get around this inconvenient truth, theists are ready to impart shades of grey/evil to God, as we saw Dr. JDD doing above. This is easy because God is such a vague concept that one can fit him into any scenario. The challenge for creationists is to pin God down to a set of principles. Define him. Then and only then can we test what God is likely to do, and whether our observations of nature are compatible with him. Otherwise, invoking an abstract God is a futile exercise because he is indistinguishable from what one expects in a random, unguided, unsupervised, natural world.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
There’s absolutely nothing that suggests that some mysterious, supernatural force is fiddling with the development of organisms.
No fiddling required. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions can do anything, let alone produce organisms and their diversity.
Because all of life’s processes can be reduced to chemistry.
That is the great hope of materialism. Yet nothing suggests that is so.
NA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature.
And yet nature cannot produce DNA.
It is not a software program.
The genetic code acts like one and the ribosome acts like a genetic compiler.
Mutations in DNA occur naturally and changes the way the molecule interacts with other molecules around it. The question is "are all mutations random, as in happenstance, events?"
All the evidence we have clearly shows how all organisms evolved from a common origin.
From the Intelligent Designer of Life.
Joe_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Because all of life’s processes can be reduced to chemistry.
That's the assumption - unproven at this point.
DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program.
Well, I think it's more accurate to compare the genetic operations that drive a fertilized egg through a mature organism as genetic-programming than merely to chemical reactions. I think that's the common understanding in bio-chemistry also.
All the evidence we have clearly shows how all organisms evolved from a common origin.
To me that sounds wildly overstated -- I don't think we have evidence that shows clearly how all organisms evolved.
To deny the weight of our observations and evidence, and invoke imaginary designers requires quite a leap of faith.
To draw conclusions on imaginary evidence regarding what happened in the history of life on earth may require a much greater leap of faith.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

///So, your argument here may be able to criticise your own perception of what a “god” should look like and behave /// World has no evil -> Bingo, God! World is full of evil -> Bingo, not the kind of God you want, but still God! Your God is really flexible and malleable, I must say. He neatly fits into any scenario one comes up with! He's virtually indistinguishable from natural processes. Such a God becomes redundant, unnecessary and is totally useless in explaining anything.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

///But doesn’t it make you wonder how that works? /// Well, we know (or more correctly, we have increasing knowledge of) how that works. Which is why we are able to control and manipulate the development of chickens or even humans, and develop treatments like in vitro fertilization. We're able to introduce new genes or remove existing ones at our will and trace the entire developmental process. There's absolutely nothing that suggests that some mysterious, supernatural force is fiddling with the development of organisms. /// We’re looking at the origin of such things. Mutation and selection really don’t work as an explanation. There is simply no reason that kind of genetic blueprint/planning would develop from mutations. /// Well, it does. Because all of life's processes can be reduced to chemistry. DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program. Mutations in DNA occur naturally and changes the way the molecule interacts with other molecules around it. Altered interactions produce different results - which is the basis of evolution. All the evidence we have clearly shows how all organisms evolved from a common origin. To deny the weight of our observations and evidence, and invoke imaginary designers requires quite a leap of faith.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

SA,, Since protein folding itself cannot be explained in purely 'naturalistic terms', without reference to non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/computation, then certainly embryological development also falls outside the purview of 'natural', i.e. within space-time, processes'. Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ Confronting Science’s Logical Limits – John L. Casti – 1996 Excerpt: It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10^127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids. (The universe is 13.7 x 10^9 years old). In fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the mathematical formulation of the protein-folding problem is computationally “hard” in the same way that the traveling-salesman problem is hard. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Confronting_Sciences_Logical_Limits.pdf Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at: Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins - May 8, 2013 Excerpt: quantum computing is, "in some cases, really, really fast." McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous "travelling salesperson" problem that's been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,, "This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast," McGeoch says. "There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it's built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it's thousands of times faster than anything I'm aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes -- it does as well as some of the best things I've looked at. At this point it's merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508122828.htm Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in proteins busily computing answers, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for protein folding, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation; related note: Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

the bystander: Don’t ask me what other agent comes to mind.I still can’t figure out – nor can any other fellow ID members.
I find it very hard to believe that you asked this question of the ID community. You could try directed panspermia, for one thing.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Why do predators brutally kill their prey? Just like humans, all other life also fall ill and suffer without performing any “sin” nonsense. Why did the dinosaurs who thrived for 150 million years vanish suddenly? God decided enough is enough?! Nature is pregnant with ruthless opportunism – a fact that screams nobody is overseeing all this.
I think you have to admit that there's quite a lot of harmony mixed with the ruthless opportunism. At the same time, I would tend to agree with you if you mean "overseeing" as equivalent to "controlling" or "determining" everything. That would be a different view of God - if you expected that. For example, that would be God building a world, and placing all the characters and objects in it, then moving them around like dolls or puppets. But that way, nobody could freely do a good deed or actually show real love or commit a sin. So, you can still have an overseer and yet have lack of control. A classic example is with human parents and their children. There is some control and some freedom. It's a trust-based relationship - letting the kids have enough freedom to make mistakes.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

ID has not shown design can only arise via an agent. Everyday we witness design arising on its own by purely natural processes. Humans developing from a single cell, a seed sprouting into a plant which grows into a tree, a shapeless chicken embryo taking the shape of a chicken…all these happen right before our eyes with NO supernatural intervention or design engineer as far as we can see.
Ok, good examples of genetic programming. But doesn't it make you wonder how that works? The future state of an organism is contained in a cell or seed - then grows from embryo to maturity "by itself"? We're looking at the origin of such things. Mutation and selection really don't work as an explanation. There is simply no reason that kind of genetic blueprint/planning would develop from mutations.Silver Asiatic_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

the bystander:
Don’t ask me what other agent comes to mind.I still can’t figure out – nor can any other fellow ID members.
Q- there are you happy now?Joe_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply