More Astonishing Things Materialists Say

_{Barry Arrington

April 12, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to my last post, Sev gives us an astonishing double down:

Yes, a microscopic living cell is immensely complex when you look at it closely but comparing one to a factory based on some similarities in the internal processes is an analogy not necessarily evidence of design. To judge the value of an analogy you should also consider the differences. For example, a human factory is vastly larger than a living cell. It’s also made of refined metals, plastics and glass which you don’t find in the cell. Judged by those attributes of known design, the cell is not designed.

OK, lets consider the differences that you point out.

1. Cells are smaller than factories. Sev, you didn’t think this one through. Think of the original computers. They were the size of a room and less powerful than today’s handheld smart phone. So which is the more sophisticated design, UNIVAC or my Galaxy Edge 7? The inference from miniaturization goes in the opposite direction you seem to think it does. Even the simplest cell is a marvel of nano-technology. The “nano” part of that phrase increases the confidence we can have in the design inference.

2. Cells are made from different materials. So? Mount Rushmore is a designed object that uses stone as a material. The computer I am typing this on is a designed object made of metal, plastic and silicon. The messages Craig Venter encoded in DNA were designed objects using DNA as the medium. The design inference is based on an analysis of whether the object is characterized by specified complexity, not the material of which it is made.

Comments

KF:
I of course pointed out an historical fact concerning a key journal and Nobel Prize-winning revolutionary work...
But none of this explains your fear of the peer review process. Is it because you must respond to their criticisms before your paper can be published? Surely they would accept your Plato's cave argument in response to their questions. Or Lewontin. And if that fails you could simply provide an interminable list of cut and paste. Or accuse them of side tracking, red herrings, strawmanning, projection or any one of your cliches.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

AS, there is also a false projection there. For example, the Discovery Institute specifically holds and has long held that it is inappropriate to force teachers to give expositions of design theory in the class room; though there should be academic freedom for students, teachers and researchers to discuss views and alternatives. Instead, origins science should not be taught in a manner set up to indoctrinate in evolutionary materialistic scientism, and an honest examination of strengths, limitations and weaknesses is appropriate. Indeed, that is the gateway for opening up the principle that scientific knowledge is inherently provisional and open-ended [due to inductive logic etc], a key reason for onward investment in research. Which is an important thing for future voters to understand. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

PS: I point out Lewontin's telling admission:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
PPS: The US National Science Teachers Association Board, trying to impose the same on school science education:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
PPS: The US National Academy of Science is a little subtler, but the point still comes through. I modify to bring out key concerns and show the sounder path being locked out:
In science, explanations must be based on ~~naturally occurring phenomena~~ [--> accurate and reliable, confirmed observation, description and sound analysis]. ~~Natural~~ [--> reliably empirically observed] causes [--> add: meet Newton's vera causa, actually observed cause test and so] are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature,
[--> the false choice, natural vs supernatural, when the real and readily empirically testable choice since Plato in the Laws Bk X c 360 BC has been natural ( = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial working by intelligently directed configuration, aka design. This is a case of irresponsible red herring distraction from the real issue to a convenient strawman creationism target set up to be soaked with the ad hominems of anti-scientific motivation and underlying between the lines insinuations of right wing theocratic "christofascist" impositions, etc]
scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it.
[--> observe a case of configuration-based specific functionality beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complex organisation emerging by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference principle would collapse. the strawman tactic is used in a context where it is easy to see that on a trillion observation base, such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration, AKA design, as key causal factor]
Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10. Emphases added.]
kairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

I of course pointed out an historical fact concerning a key journal and Nobel Prize-winning revolutionary work [notice the reaction of willful dismissive ignorance above], as a case that underscores that appeal to the authority of an anonymous panel (which can become ideologically tainted) -- on relevant cases -- does not short-circuit how warrant works. No individual or collective authority is better than the underlying assumptions, facts and reasoning. It so happens that the relevant reasoning that undergirds the design inference is well within reach of common sense everyday science. The evasiveness and excuses to ideologically lock it out as we have seen over many years constitute demonstrations, not of how the design inference on tested sign [trillions of cases!] is unscientific, but instead of how science as institutionalised can and does become unfortunately ideologised. In this case, the self-refuting, self-falsifying ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller thought have become the yardstick imposed. When falsity is used as the criterion to judge truth, truth cannot ever pass, as the truth will not agree with a relevant falsehood. Hence many of the dilemmas of our time. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Here are some excerpts from a 2007 book review, by Gary S Hurd, critiquing the book, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolution Models Face Off, by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross:
The standing of evolutionary biology is independent of the origin of life. This has been true from the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. In that work, Darwin allotted less than a page toward the end of 670 pages of text to the question. The last two sentences of the sixth edition read: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved…” Do we know how life originated on earth? No. Is every one of the innumerable chemical and geological events that led to the origin of life preserved? No. Is this "proof" of a supernatural origin of life? No. Nevertheless, the origin of life will be the last refuge for "God of the gaps" arguments in decades to come.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-origins-life Apart from the last sentence, I agree completely with the first and last paragraph. However, let me explain, without the pejorative language used in the last sentence, what Dr. Hurd actually believes. He believes that, there is no possibility that an intelligent designer exists or created life. But he doesn’t know that; that is what he believes. In other words, he is making a leap of faith, totally contrary to the evidence we do have that even the simplest living things have the “appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. That is the same irrational mindset exhibited by most of our regular interlocutors. They believe there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, because they have an a priori commitment to a naturalistic world view.john_a_designer_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

If many on the ID side think that the scientific community is so bad, why do they want to have ID taught in the science class?
Armand, I don't think the scientific community and science education are always found to be the same resource. I don't know why you would smear the two together. Andrewasauber_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Andrew:
Not necessarily. It’s mostly the opinion of the person doing the reviewing.
Really? How many papers have you published in peer reviewed journals. My experience is that the reviewers have generally provided constructive criticism and, on occasion, pointed out a serious flaw in my methodology. The number of comments that have been what I would call unsupported opinion have been very few.
I know you want to idealize the scientific community, as it acts as your church, but that would be the unscientific approach.
Nobody is idealizing it. It is a process with strengths and weaknesses. And it's practitioners have all of the same strengths and weaknesses as is found elsewhere in society. But I am confused. If many on the ID side think that the scientific community is so bad, why do they want to have ID taught in the science class?Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Groovamos @13 @46 Regarding caterpillars, Stephen L.Talbott points out the challenge they pose for the neo-darwinian gene-centric view.
S.L.Talbott: Millions of species consist of such improbably distinct creatures, organized in completely different ways at different stages of their life, yet carrying around the same genetic inheritance. Isn’t it a truth inviting the most profound meditation by every biologist?
He goes on citing British physician and evolutionary scientist, Frank Ryan:
We only have to consider the dramatic difference between a feeding grub or caterpillar and a flying butterfly or a beetle to grasp that the old mouth is rendered useless and must be replaced with new mouthparts, new salivary glands, new gut, new rectum. New legs must replace the creepy-crawly locomotion of the grub or caterpillar, and all must be clothed in a complex new skin, which in turn will manufacture the tough new external skeleton of the adult. Nowhere is the challenge of the new more demanding than in the nervous system — where a new brain is born. And no change is more practical to the new life-form than the newly constructed genitals essential for the most important new role of the adult form — the sexual reproduction of a new generation. The overwhelming destruction and reconstruction extends to the very cells that make up the individual tissues, where the larval tissues and organs are broken up and dissolved into an autodigested mush . . . To all intents and purposes, life has returned to the embryonic state with the constituent cells in an undifferentiated form. [Ryan 2011]
Origenes_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

It’s an appeal to rationality.
Armand, Not necessarily. It's mostly the opinion of the person doing the reviewing. I know you want to idealize the scientific community, as it acts as your church, but that would be the unscientific approach. Andrewasauber_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Andrew:
Peer review is the sciencey version of legalism.
Nonsense. It is nothing more nor less than the publication of papers after constructive criticism by peers has been addressed. It is far from perfect but it is still a very effective means of presenting research conclusions.
It doesn’t prove anything.
I didn't say it did. All it demonstrates is that the methodology used has been reviewed by those knowledgable in the subject and, in their view, the methodology is sound.
It’s appeal to an authority.
No it isn't. It's an appeal to rationality. The entire scientific community sees value in the peer review process, in spite of its flaws. ID claims to be science yet avoids it at all cost. One must ask why? What is the rational argument for KF refusing to draft his arguments for FSCO/I into a paper for publication in a peer reviewed journal? KF would argue that Einstein's pivotal work was not published in a peer reviewed journal. I don't know if this is true or not. But there are two things that I do know: 1) this is 2017 and peer review is a valuable tool in advancing science. 2) KF is no Einstein. I am tempted to make a Back to the Future reference here, but I will refrain.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Bob This isn’t my area of expertise, I’m afraid, so I probably can’t answer any more detailed questions. Neither can the RM/NS proposition. Thanks just the same though, I did read it. The funny thing about Darwinism is that its proponents are sure that all questions of form and function CAN be answered by the RM/NS proposition no matter how ridiculous are the 'proposed scenarios' that are supposedly part of the 'science', and that essay was full of contingencies and speculations that can never be proven. And this is the crux of the problem with Darwinism really. The project was taken on as a science when science has no hope of ever giving us the picture of the advent of metamorphosis, or the human brain, the universe, or anything else. Reality is the ultimate ego smasher for materialists. So Darwinism is not falsifiable. It cannot be a science. It can be an underpinning for a philosophy of living for those holding on to it because everyone must have a creation story to live their life philosophy. But this is a creation story and philosophy that can be taught by the schools to the kids because it does masquerade as a science.groovamos_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

AJ said:
Since nobody is suggesting this, I fail to see your point. Density gradients don’t happen by chance. Chemoklines do not happen by chance. Evaporation doesn’t happen by chance. I have no idea if any of these played a part in the origin of life but by referring to physical and chemical interactions as “happenstance” just demonstrated a woeful ignorance of physics and chemistry.
Or perhaps it demonstrates that you don't understand what I mean by the term "happenstance chemical interactions". I suggest you head to Merriam Webster under the synonymous term "chance" and scroll down to the definition of the word "chance" used as an adjective, which is how I used it:
happening without being planned
Unless it is your position that the nanotechnology in question was the result of planning, I suggest you are the one that has "woefully misunderstood" my use of the adjective form of "happenstance" (as synonymous with the adjective use of the term "chance").William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

groovamos @ 46 - This is another problem what we don't have a full answer to, but there's a summary of our ideas here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/ It's a few years old, so things might have moved on since then. This isn't my area of expertise, I'm afraid, so I probably can't answer any more detailed questions.Bob O'H_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

all of the peer reviewed papers
Armand, Peer review is the sciencey version of legalism. It doesn't prove anything. It's appeal to an authority. That's a fallacy, if you are interested in thinking about such things. Andrewasauber_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Of course, the issue in Darwin's pond or the like is forces and factors of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity working through physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. They simply are not adequate to explain the coded, textual algorithmically functional information at the heart of cell based life.kairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology.
Since nobody is suggesting this, I fail to see your point. Density gradients don't happen by chance. Chemoklines do not happen by chance. Evaporation doesn't happen by chance. I have no idea if any of these played a part in the origin of life but by referring to physical and chemical interactions as "happenstance" just demonstrated a woeful ignorance of physics and chemistry.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Marfin:
To BoH, CR , AJ, Can you please give 2 or 3 of the strongest reasons/evidence why you believe that life arose from non living materials by just blind ,non directed non designed processes.
I have no idea how life originated. And neither does anyone else. But there is an entire field of research that is examining this question and they have produced hundreds of peer reviewed papers. I must have missed all of the peer reviewed papers that are examining the designed origin of life. Could you point me in their direction?Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance interactions of chemistry, you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy. Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state. Thankfully, such exchanges are useful for other onlookers with more reasonable perspectives.William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

To BoH, CR , AJ, Can you please give 2 or 3 of the strongest reasons/evidence why you believe that life arose from non living materials by just blind ,non directed non designed processes. If you now say no, you show me 2 or 3 reasons why you believe in design, all you are doing is accepting and showing that you believe without evidence a blind faith so to speak.So come on prove me wrong show me the money.Marfin_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks: Bob, myself and others are simply asking for actual research, testing, peer reviewed papers, proposed mechanisms, evidence from multiple sources of inquiry.
You, Bob and others do not understand what ID is about.
ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself. [Eric Anderson]

Armand Jacks: In short, evidence on a par with that supporting evolution.
There is zero evidence for blind watchmaker evolution.Origenes_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Yeah, I guess I'd have to frame this from the perspective of someone who has a sufficiently powerful telescope, didn't recognize the flag, and haven't heard of the space program; so, not implausible, but muddier than I wanted. Oh, well.LocalMinimum_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

And the materialists continue to astonish. Here we are, demanding proof that that which is obvious; that complex machinery doesn't just appear from raw materials; has to have the one agency we know of; a designer; drug into the room by the collar, or get dismissed as an intolerable option against that which simply does not happen in our knowledge? "So, how did a US flag get on the moon?" "It floated up there from someone's yard." "Floated? But it would have to overcome all that negative gravitational potential?!" "Well, clearly, gravity isn't in constant operation." "Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure it is?" "Oh yeah? Well prove it! Until you have evidence, I have no interest in your claims."LocalMinimum_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Because of a priori commitment, Atheists are forced to dismiss what they see with their own eyes as illusion. How then can they function as scientists when observation has to be "purified" by a filter ready to block all evidence for what might challenge their religious viewpoint, and is dismissed as illusion when it doesn't? Talk about a limited perspective: "All of reality must fit in this little materialist box." or "I can't see anything beyond what my self-imposed blinders permit." or "I'm content to persist in the biological equivalent of alchemy, even though OOL studies are a 100 year old dead end." Sad, but what you might expect from an incoherent belief system. Atheism is as bad for science as it is all other aspects of culture; from arts to education, morality and ethics to law and government. It's parasitic and unsustainable and a key ingredient to cultural entropy. No wonder theists tend to make the best scientists and have done so much more to establish useful lines of inquiry through history. We're free to make conclusions based on what we actually see with our own eyes. I just bought Douglas Axe's book and I think he argues this in detail. Can't wait to dig in.bb_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Armand: Bob, myself and others are simply asking for actual research, testing, peer reviewed papers, proposed mechanisms, evidence from multiple sources of inquiry. In short, evidence on a par with that supporting evolution. See here is how it works. Your master Darwin put forth the "slight modification" lemma. So that means that the advent of metamorphosis was a "slight modification" to the life of caterpillars since a partial advent of such would be a 'deselective disadvantage', in other words destructive. So like in post @13 we need to know who discovered the single 'random mutation' that generated the advent of metamorphosis. This is the kind of evidence that is required of you guys since it is your theory of life we discuss here. What was that 'random mutation'? Actually this can be solved in another way if necessary, and you can sleep well tonight. If the single 'random mutation' couldn't do it then it is up to you guys to show that a partially 'evolved' metamorphosis mechanism would not kill the creature. With links to the proof please, that it actually unfolded in the way described, that is as a series of mutations.groovamos_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

F/N: A list of 50+ papers has been repeatedly pointed out. But the matter is far more basic. In order to object as above, objectors have had to create examples of the source of FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration. Literally staring them in the face. Beyond that demands are now being made up as a way to sidestep evidence in hand, starting with DNA's coded copious text and the fine tuned cosmos. Unresponsiveness like that tells all. KFkairosfocus_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

@ john_a_designer, your no 11 The very definition of empirical science, itself, hinges on both design and its appearance. As far as I know, there's no field of empirical science or metaphysics designated, 'randomology' or 'happenstance'. Crazy, crazy, crazy Dawkins, and even crazier proper scientists for not ridiculing the very title of the book. You should all be hanged, drawn and quartered for allowing it to gain traction among the myrmidon-numpties of atheism, by failing to ridicule it mercilessly the moment anyone got wind of its impending publication. It's all a priori. Armand's been off his meds again. The times I've told him not to ! It's about meanng and logic, Armand, mon pauvre vieux. Not measuring physical gizmeters. Evidence for evolution !???!!! I've just spotted it. Call an ambulance, someone. He's overdosed! And I thought he'd missed them...Axel_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

KF:
BO’H: you have evidence staring you in the face. Because of a priori commitments, you set that aside and demand separate evidence. That tells all. KF
No. Bob, myself and others are simply asking for actual research, testing, peer reviewed papers, proposed mechanisms, evidence from multiple sources of inquiry. In short, evidence on a par with that supporting evolution.Armand Jacks_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

BO'H: you have evidence staring you in the face. Because of a priori commitments, you set that aside and demand separate evidence. That tells all. KFkairosfocus_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H: This is true, although we are developing evidence for how it might have happened (which isn’t terribly satisfactory, but without a time machine is probably the best we can do).
I fully agree with Bob O'H. The evidence for intelligent design is mounting every day, while those who seek a naturalistic explanation are as clueless as they ever were:
All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated… So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal. You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day. [James Tour]
Origenes_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

JAD @ 38 -
We have absolutely no evidence as to how the first self-replicating living cell originated abiogenetically (from non-life).
This is true, although we are developing evidence for how it might have happened (which isn't terribly satisfactory, but without a time machine is probably the best we can do)
So following your arbitrarily made-up standard that’s not a logical possibility, so we shouldn’t even consider it.
Eh? I've never applied that standard, and have never argued that. I accept it's possible that life was created by some intelligence, but I just don't find the evidence put forward for this at all convincing.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2017
April
04
Apr
13
13
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply