Intelligent Design

Materialists: Other Intelligences for Me, But Not for Thee

Spread the love

Did you ever notice how materialists like to have it both ways on the probable exist of other intelligences?  Consider a recent exchange between Kairosfocus and that fount of materialist hypocrisy Ed George in the context of a discussion of the semiotic code instantiated in every living cell:

KF:  It is noteworthy that algorithmic, alphanumeric code — a linguistic phenomenon — remains stubbornly as only the product of intelligence.

EG:  [T]o the best of our knowledge, it remains stubbornly as only the product of human intelligence.

Ed reasons as follows:  KF has no warrant to infer that the staggeringly complex, sophisticated and elegant genetic code – a semiotic code far beyond our present ability to replicate – is the product of an intelligent cause.  Why?  Because the only intelligence we know of is human intelligence.  Human intelligence is obviously not a candidate for the create of the genetic code, because humans are a result of that code, and therefore cannot be the source of that code.

The point of Ed’s comment is the only intelligence we know of – human intelligence – could not have created the code.  Therefore, the code could not be the result of intelligence, and if follows that a non-intelligent cause – i.e., a blind, unguided natural cause –  is the only viable candidate for the creation of the code.

So when it comes to the genetic code, Ed is certain it could not have been created by intelligence, because as far as we know human intelligence is unique in the universe, and we have no warrant to believe there is any other intelligence that could have created the code.

But what about that heuristic much beloved of materialists known as the Principle of Mediocrity.  Wiki describes the principle as follows:

The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth’s history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.

The famous Drake Equation has its roots in the principle of mediocrity.  Using that equation, Drake estimated there were between 1,000 and 100 million intelligent civilizations in just our one galaxy (much less the other billions of galaxies in the universe).

So when it suits them for minimizing human exceptionalism, materialists eagerly conjure the possible (some some highly probable) existence of millions of intelligent civilizations.

Here is the hypocrisy:  When it comes to inferring the existence of other intelligent civilizations, materialists are happy to speculate that there might be millions of such.  But when it comes to inferring intelligence as a cause of the genetic code, they insist we cannot possibly consider that it is possible for any intelligence but human intelligence to exist.

28 Replies to “Materialists: Other Intelligences for Me, But Not for Thee

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    Here is another have-it-both-ways example, even more absurd…

    A Darwinist-archeologist digs up a broken jar, made out of clay …

    The jar is a product of intelligence – NO DOUBTS HERE.

    Next to the broken jar made out of clay, another Darwinist digs up a skeleton of a giant dinosaur – the skeleton weights several tons, it is made of hi-tech material, and the skeleton includes iconic engineering elements e.g. joints (actually, lots of joints)

    But, for some unknown reason, in this case, Darwinists concluded, that this hi-tech engineering masterpiece is not a product of intelligence, but a product of some unknown, mystical, non-identified, never seen before, random unguided ‘natural’ process ….

    It looks like there is a global outbreak of mental illness among well educated and very smart atheistic-scientists … some doctor should take care of them …

  2. 2
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: Next to the broken jar made out of clay, another Darwinist digs up a skeleton of a giant dinosaur – the skeleton weights several tons, it is made of hi-tech material, and the skeleton includes iconic engineering elements e.g. joints (actually, lots of joints)

    No way those two items would be in the same layer. But that aside . . .

    Dinosaurs were living creatures and there exists much evidence of how they changed over millions of years.

    The broken jar is inanimate and since we NEVER see inanimate clay form itself into identifiable patterns including decorations and shapes and since we probably have lots of similar examples already the conclusion of man-made is, as you say, easy.

    It looks like there is a global outbreak of mental illness among well educated and very smart atheistic-scientists … some doctor should take care of them …

    I leave the insult alone but you do realise that it’s pretty offensive.

  3. 3
    Ed George says:

    BA

    Ed reasons as follows: [followed by more than 400 words]

    I must be a miracle worker if I can get over 400 words of reasoning out of a 16 word sentence, half of them single syllable. BA once again demonstrates the fallacious debating tactic of ascribing thoughts, intentions and motivations on those he disagrees with in an attempt to score debate points.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL claims “Dinosaurs were living creatures and there exists much evidence of how they changed over millions of years.”

    And yet, “g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. ”

    The Truth About Evolution – Transitional Fossils
    Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:
    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
    d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
    e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
    f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
    g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
    h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
    i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
    j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
    http://tellall.org/fossils.htm

    The Evolution of the Darwin Fish – February 17, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales.,,,
    After Darwin, various ‘transitional’ fish with bony fins were subsequently proposed and deposed (see sign, above), but Darwinians didn’t become excited until Neil Shubin’s Tiktaalik fossil (6 April 2006), though some disagreed (4 December 2008).,,,
    Subsequently, though, tetrapod tracks were found a full 10 million Darwin Years earlier (6 January 2010), undermining Shubin’s claim to have found a transitional form.
    Darwinians are still hunting. Some of their claims seem outlandish (if you’ll pardon the pun). Who would think that rays and skates would be candidates? Sharks and rays—cartilaginous fish—don’t look ready to crawl onto the land. Science Daily, though, jumps on a new idea coming out of the New York University School of Medicine: “Walking fish suggests locomotion control evolved much earlier than thought.” [Thought by whom? See tontology.]
    Cartoons that illustrate evolution depict early vertebrates generating primordial limbs as they move onto land for the first time. But new findings indicate that some of these first ambulatory creatures may have stayed under water, spawning descendants that today exhibit walking behavior on the ocean floor. The results appear February 8 in the journal Cell.
    “It has generally been thought that the ability to walk is something that evolved as vertebrates transitioned from sea to land,” says senior author Jeremy Dasen, a developmental neurobiologist in the Department of Neuroscience and Physiology at the New York University School of Medicine. “We were surprised to learn that certain species of fish also can walk. In addition, they use a neural and genetic developmental program that is almost identical to the one used by higher vertebrates, including humans.“
    https://crev.info/2018/02/evolution-darwin-fish/

    Mudskippers. The Strangest Creature ever to Defy Evolution
    December 14, 2016
    Excerpt: No fossil evidence exists for their putative evolution from some pre-mudskipper organism. Scientists are not even able to satisfactorily classify modern mudskippers into a family, leaving their evolution to pure speculation. They were once included in the Oxudercinae subfamily, within the family Gobiidae (gobies), but recent molecular studies do not support this classification. Darwinists are now stymied about their phylogeny, and can only speculate concerning from what and how they could have evolved. A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
    Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.” As Polgar, et al. note, more study is required to detail the evolution of the mudskipper (2014, p. 179).
    Many experts have hypothesized that fish fins evolved into terrestrial limbs, a theory that also does not fit the facts (Clack, 2012, p. 136). For example, the earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl (having five fingers and toes) as are modern tetrapods, and the fossil evidence does not support the fin to limb evolution (Clack, 2012, pp. 136-137).
    Summary
    In short, the mudskipper is not a fish that evolved legs or an amphibian that evolved to look like a fish, but a graceful well designed swimmer in water that gets along so well out of water that they spend most of their life on land and thrive in large areas of the world. We have no evidence of fish-fin to tetrapod limb evolution, and the mudskipper does not help to explain the major missing links that can bridge the two structures. Like the duck-billed platypus, the mudskipper contains a unique mosaic of features found on many different animals. And this situation is bad news for evolutionists.
    http://www.create.ab.ca/mudski.....evolution/

    Of further note:

    Here is a recent (2018) excellent presentation on the very ‘un-Darwinian’ nature of the fossil record.

    Conflicting Evidence for Common Ancestry from the Fossil Record (Dr. Gunter Bechly) – 2018 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyOIDIZum4

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
    Ernst Mayr – Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” – February 20, 2018,
    Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it.
    In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists have always been disingenuous when it comes to Intelligent causation.

    They only invoke ETs when they try to discount God as the cause for the design we see in life.

    Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, each atheists, both appealed to ETs rather than God to explain life.
    Richard Dawkins stated the situation as such in his interview with Ben Stein:

    BEN STEIN: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?”
    DAWKINS: “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
    – Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview (3:18 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

    Francis Crick was much more explicit than Dawkins, and stated it best in his book “Life Itself”

    “Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence. They genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites with the hope that it would collide with another planet. It did, and that’s why we’re here. The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering. The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design.
    Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first so-called’ simple cell(s). Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore — teach” us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible.”
    Francis Crick – Life Itself – September 1982

    Some researchers have apparently taken Crick’s suggestion that, “Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization”, seriously and they now claim to have detected an Intelligently Designed extraterrestrial ‘WOW signal’ in DNA

    In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the “Wow!” Signal of Intelligent Design – March 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “The ‘Wow! signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code.” Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it’s already available online.
    Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote “Wow!” next to it.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69941.html

    The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code – May 2013
    Excerpt: Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin,,,
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

    The problem for Dawkins, Crick, and any other atheist who wants to claim that ETs, rather than God, created life on earth, is that, number one, they have no evidence that ETs exist,

    Search for signs of alien civilisations in 100,000 galaxies has turned up nothing – 12 MAY 2015
    Excerpt: “Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien civilisation using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own purposes,” said Wright. “That’s interesting because these galaxies are billions of years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been filled with alien civilisations, if they exist. Either they don’t exist, or they don’t yet use enough energy for us to recognise them.”
    This is the dilemma at the heart of the Fermi Paradox. Logically, there have been plenty of opportunities for life to occur around the Universe, so where are all the aliens?
    http://www.sciencealert.com/se.....up-nothing

    Problem number two for atheists is that atheists, in their appeal to ETs as the cause for life, have basically conceded that not everything in the universe is the result of purely ‘natural causes’, and that Intelligent causation can indeed be detected in life.

    Yet, as I pointed out on another thread this morning, “as a Darwinist, what exactly is there in your worldview other than ‘natural causes’? You’ve exhausted all of your possible options with your appeal to ‘natural causes’.”

    As Paul Nelson stated, “some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, (i.e. ‘natural causes), because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism
    Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    ,,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, (i.e. ‘natural causes), because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Of supplemental note:

    Although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have falsely been led to believe, the one place that even leading evolutionists themselves admit that they have no realistic clue how a particular trait in humans could have possibly evolved is with human language.

    And in 2014, a group of leading experts in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they stated,,,

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;

    “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
    —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

    i.e. Although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure.

    What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to dominate the world through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states,,,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse information into material substrates.

    I guess a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
    And that is precisely the proof claimed within Christianity.

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed George:

    I must be a miracle worker if I can get over 400 words of reasoning out of a 16 word sentence, half of them single syllable. BA once again demonstrates the fallacious debating tactic . . .

    You are pathetic. The point of your observation was exactly as described in the post. That you did not even bother trying to deny this obvious fact is all we need to know.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, people go searching for SETI signals but ignore decoded language in the living cell. KF

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF

    BA, people go searching for SETI signals but ignore decoded language in the living cell.

    The god of this world has blinded them. It is as set forth in II Cor. 4:4. Yes, Ed is pathetic. His comment at 3, implying as it does that he did not mean what he clearly meant, is a lie. But he is also to be pitied. His god has afflicted him with blindness, the inability to see the glaringly obvious.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Here is the hypocrisy: When it comes to inferring the existence of other intelligent civilizations, materialists are happy to speculate that there might be millions of such. But when it comes to inferring intelligence as a cause of the genetic code, they insist we cannot possibly consider that it is possible for any intelligence but human intelligence to exist.

    Nobody, as far as I am aware, has ever denied that it is possible for an extraterrestrial intelligence to be the cause of our genetic code. But we are still waiting for ID proponents to provide something more compelling that analogical arguments to support the burden of proof they bear when making that claim. We would also like to hear how that contributes to an explanation of ultimate origins since it would appear to only push the question back one stage. In other words, who designed the Designer?

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 5

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse information into material substrates.

    Imago dei is a conveniently vague concept. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Or does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Old Testament.

    “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is arguably a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Seversky: Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc?

    One would assume that God has big kahunas.

    but you do bring up a good question: if God created man in his image then . . .

  12. 12
    Ed George says:

    JVL

    but you do bring up a good question: if God created man in his image then . . .

    Then the argument that his nature and the mechanisms he used to realize his design are beyond our capability to understand is fallacious.

  13. 13
    EDTA says:

    EG @ 12,
    >Then the argument that his nature and the mechanisms he used to realize his design are beyond our capability to understand is fallacious.

    Can you explain this? Surely you’re not saying that because God created man in his image (with some ad hoc interpretation of that) that therefore we must be able to comprehend anything God does. That would be an awesome non-sequitur.

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,

    Nobody, as far as I am aware, has ever denied that it is possible for an extraterrestrial intelligence to be the cause of our genetic code.

    Except Ed of course. That was the point of his comment that is the subject of the post Sev. Do try to keep up.

  15. 15
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL in another thread:

    I have tried to engage in a discussion, tried to be honest and straight

    JVL in this thread

    One would assume that God has big kahunas.

    So mocking and sneering at a man’s most sacred beliefs is the honest and straight way to engage in discussion. It makes me wonder if you know what those words mean.

  16. 16
    Ed George says:

    BA

    Except Ed of course. That was the point of his comment that is the subject of the post Sev. Do try to keep up.

    Yah Sev. Please keep up with the words, intentions and motives that BA puts in other people’s mouths.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed @ 16.
    You’ve been moaning for several hours now. You still haven’t come up with a meaning other than the one ascribed to you. You’re letting down the side. I would have expected you to at least try to come up with a lie by now. I know; it would be tough, because the meaning was so manifestly clear. But you’ve never hesitated to throw implausible mendacious crap into the UD combox before. I wonder what’s holding you back now.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    JVL @2

    you Darwinians clowns…

    you know what is offensive?

    Your evolutionary theory is VERY OFFENSIVE, especially in 21st century.

    Why don’t we close technical universities around the World, and send all mechanical engineers to take biology lessons? I was always wondering, how you Darwinians clowns imagine evolution of a joint. No surprise, that there is no fossil evidence on how joints evolved, actually, there is no fossil record on how skeletons evolved. Where ever you look, you will find fully developed, fully working skeletons, including iconic engineering elements – joints.

    How you darwinian clowns imagine to explain an evolution of a joint (except of making up some crazy absurd just-so-stories?)

    How you Darwinian clowns imagine to explain how hi-tech materials (bones) can evolve with no help from engineers ? Where ever you look, you will find tons of sophisticated hi-tech materials in nature. All this by chance? Do you understand why you should see a doctor ? and take your Darwinians friends with you….

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: So mocking and sneering at a man’s most sacred beliefs is the honest and straight way to engage in discussion. It makes me wonder if you know what those words mean.

    It was just a joke. If you took offence then I apologise.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: you Darwinians clowns…

    I guess that means me.

    Your evolutionary theory is VERY OFFENSIVE, especially in 21st century.

    Umm . . . okay.

    Why don’t we close technical universities around the World, and send all mechanical engineers to take biology lessons? I was always wondering, how you Darwinians clowns imagine evolution of a joint. No surprise, that there is no fossil evidence on how joints evolved, actually, there is no fossil record on how skeletons evolved. Where ever you look, you will find fully developed, fully working skeletons, including iconic engineering elements – joints.

    I’m not sure that is correct but I haven’t really looked into that particular topic.

    How you darwinian clowns imagine to explain an evolution of a joint (except of making up some crazy absurd just-so-stories?)

    I might be inclined to try and answer that but your hostile and disrespectful tone are rather putting me off.

    How you Darwinian clowns imagine to explain how hi-tech materials (bones) can evolve with no help from engineers ? Where ever you look, you will find tons of sophisticated hi-tech materials in nature. All this by chance? Do you understand why you should see a doctor ? and take your Darwinians friends with you….

    I can’t really see much point in trying to respond to your comments. The question is good but your tone is rude and I’m just not inclined to deal with it.

  21. 21
    jawa says:

    Martin_r,
    Interesting comments. Thanks.

    Off topic
    In the JHU CoViD19 stats your country seems doing much better than others.

  22. 22
    jawa says:

    Alexa ranks
    Site…….rank…….top%
    EN:……. 224,863…….1
    TO:……. 544,723…….1
    UD:……. 572,307…….1
    SW:……. 777,960…….1
    PT:……. 1,820,971…….2
    PS:……. 4,685,059…….5
    TSZ:…….6,914,237…….7

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, scarequoting information while using the global infostructure as a soapbox is rich. Information is as real as structure and quantity are, and the same given information, I, may be impressed into ICT units x1, x2, . . . xn in diverse but equally useful ways. Those ways reflect protocols and codes which allow information based organisation and operations. For instance the same message can be in H/T of coins, on/off of relays, on/off of various transistor and related circuits, magnetic field orientation, phase and/or amplitude of a current or wireless EM signal, magnetic bubble state in say Garnet, re-purposed GCAT code, and more. It can be simultaneously present in multiple locations; so, it is not in itself physically located, it is an abstract reality that shapes constraints of logic of being, e.g. structure, quantity and more. It can be transferred. It can be processed and transformed. Through creative mind, it can be invented. Through structured chains of Y/N Q’s, constituting a description language such as the DWG used by AutoCAD, it can be drawn out of observed structures such as my favourite case, the 6500CT round reel, etc. That we live in an info age implies that we are better able to perceive things that were once obscure to us, such as the DNA based info system and linked functional organisation in the cell. If, we are willing. The root problem. KF

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL: As I just noticed, let me point to a 101 discussion on imago dei: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/image-of-god-meaning-imago-dei-in-the-bible.html

    >> Imago Dei, or Image of God, means in likeness, or similarity, to God. Humans are created with unique abilities, absent in all other creatures of the earth, that mirror the divine nature of God.

    The significance of humans being created “in the image of God” is our responsibility to recognize and understand rationality and ability to create abstract conceptions from the natural world. This gives us the capacity to create a glorious peaceful world or a fallen chaotic environment, depending upon our motives and understanding. Just as Satan fell from God, we are capable of falling from God and suffering the consequences. We must realize our dual potential (good vs evil) and act in accordance with God’s will and law to create prosperous and benevolent communities and nations.>>

    Hope that helps move beyond simplistic views. KF

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Eddie George:

    Then the argument that his nature and the mechanisms he used to realize his design are beyond our capability to understand is fallacious.

    The “cuz I say so” argument.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    seversky:

    But we are still waiting for ID proponents to provide something more compelling that analogical arguments to support the burden of proof they bear when making that claim.

    We have provided more to support our claims than you and yours have provided to support yours. You have FAILED in your burden of proof- failed miserably. That means you are nothing but a coward and a hypocrite.

    In other words, who designed the Designer?

    Doesn’t matter. We can’t address that question without studying said designer.

    It’s as if our opponents are totally ignorant of how science operates. And they think their ignorance is an argument.

  27. 27
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL

    It was just a joke.

    Yes, I understood that it was an attempt at humor by mocking religious beliefs. There is no need to apologize to me; I have long since become inured to materialists mocking the sacred beliefs of others. It is a denigration of the other person’s dignity so commonplace that it hardly bears noting, sort of like the ubiquitous use of the “N” word in the Jim Crow south. I noted it in this instance only because of the striking irony engendered by the fact that mere moments before you callously struck at the dignity of the other, you were telling UB how virtuous you are.

    Finally, “it was a joke” never excuses boorish behavior. There are plenty of racist and sexist jokes. I assume you would not excuse the racism and sexism merely because they were manifested in an attempt at humor.

  28. 28
    jawa says:

    Designable DNA-binding domains enable construction of logic circuits in mammalian cells

    Electronic computer circuits consisting of a large number of connected logic gates of the same type, such as NOR, can be easily fabricated and can implement any logic function.

    In contrast, designed genetic circuits must employ orthogonal information mediators owing to free diffusion within the cell.

    Combinatorial diversity and orthogonality can be provided by designable DNA- binding domains.

    Here, we employed the transcription activator–like repressors to optimize the construction of orthogonal functionally complete NOR gates to construct logic circuits.

    We used transient transfection to implement all 16 two-input logic functions from combinations of the same type of NOR gates within mammalian cells.

    Additionally, we present a genetic logic circuit where one input is used to select between an AND and OR function to process the data input using the same circuit.

    This demonstrates the potential of designable modular transcription factors for the construction of complex biological information-processing devices.

    complex biological information-processing devices   ?

    Nah, that can’t be right.   Biology is all chemistry, isn’t it?

     

Leave a Reply