In the OOL post below a commenter named Okfanriffic writes:
Hi guys. I work as a biochemist and like most biochemists we are concerned with understanding biology so that we can combat disease. An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes. Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on! Science works, guys! Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion christians)So all science is doing is uncovering how your god did its magic. Think about it. If we uncover a natural process you can just say your god did it but if we can’t that might be proof of supernatural god magic!
I will fisk this comment from the bottom up:
“So all science is doing is uncovering how your god did its magic.”
Even though you are trying to be an insufferably smug condescending ass (and succeeding admirably I might add), what you say here is actually not far from the truth. Kepler, a Christian and one of the greatest scientists of all time, described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”
“Think about it. If we uncover a natural process you can just say your god did it but if we can’t that might be proof of supernatural god magic!”
Do you find that offensive condescending nastiness helps you win arguments? I’m just wondering, because that seems to be your modus operandi. It really is a distraction and speaks volumes about your level of maturity and general character (sadly, none to your credit).
To the point you are trying to raise, the issue is not whether God did it (though he may have). The issue is whether even in principle unguided natural forces are sufficient to account for the data. To that issue, you must not have read UB’s comment at 8 in the same thread, or at least you did not address what he said. Let me quote it for you:
. . . the organization of the first living cell on earth required a translation apparatus which must include a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to function. To say that unguided material forces established such a local independence within a system is simply to assume that it can. This assumption is necessarily made against a backdrop of – not only zero corroborating evidence – but 100% universal experience to the contrary.
On what specific empirical grounds (i.e. something well established in logic, and/or something that stems from well-documented empirical principles) do we ignore universal evidence in favor of zero evidence? What type of qualities do we look for in a pending question in order to make such a determination? Is this justification established in physical law? If so, how, and if not, then why should anyone bend a knee to it?
UB asks several questions. Do you have an answer to any of them?
“Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion Christians.”
I am not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that all 1.3 billion Catholics and Anglicans subscribe to the theory that unguided natural forces can account for the information systems in living cells. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Catholic Michael Behe would probably disagree. In any case, the statement is a distraction, so much gorilla dust thrown into the air. The issue is “what is true.” The issue is not “what do lots of people believe even though it may not be true.”
“Science works, guys!”
Yes it does. No one here has suggested otherwise. I find something about your comment fascinating though. You claim to champion science, and you attempt to cloak your comment with the authority of science (“I work as a biochemist”). Yet, your comment does not contain a single scientific statement. What’s up with that? Pardon, Okfanriffic, your metaphysics is showing.
“Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.”
Research into OOL issues is indeed reasonable. No argument here. Is imposing a prior metaphysical assumptions on that research reasonable? That is the question. How do you answer it?
“Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on!”
True, but completely irrelevant unless you are suggesting that OOL research has answered any of the important questions, in which case you are simply wrong.
“An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes.”
No argument here. And if the data point to a guiding intelligence as part of those processes should we avert our eyes and insist on pounding our metaphysical assumptions onto the data. Or should we accept the data on its own terms? I vote for “accept the data on its own terms.” How do you vote?
“I work as a biochemist and like most biochemists we are concerned with understanding biology so that we can combat disease.”
We here at UD are also concerned with understanding biology. If the data point to the conclusion that natural forces are sufficient to account for the data, we are perfectly happy to accept that conclusion. Example: No one here disputes that Darwinian processes are perfectly adequate to account for the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. But, as UB eloquently write above, if the data point in a different direction we are happy to follow where the data lead instead of trying to pound our metaphysical prejudices onto the data.
So here’s the difference between you and us: We are more open-minded. Did your training as a biochemist lead you to be close-minded? If so, that’s a shame.