Darwinism Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Rabbi: Anti-design physicist makes the best case for design of life

Spread the love

From Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of author of  The Confused World of Modern Atheism (Mosaica Press, 2016), at Times of Israel:

Dr. Leonard Susskind is a renowned professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and is credited as being one of the fathers of string theory.

He was asked to comment at a NASA panel discussion on the lack of design in the universe, and replied:

Dr. Susskind responded by saying: “I don’t believe the universe was designed by an intelligence. I believe the universe was designed the same way the incredible human being was designed. It certainly looks – and before Darwin – it looked like some designer must have, what else could possibly account for the complexity of a human being, the human brain and so forth. And we eventually found out what it was; it was random mutation, a bunch of carbon, oxygen, and other stuff for that mutation to work on and a little bit of everything evolved…so it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design.”

 To which Averick replies,

Where did the astounding machinery of a living cell – a pre-requisite for evolution – come from? The materialist Origin of Life researcher replies: “We don’t have the slightest idea, but we’re working on it. After all, science doesn’t know everything!” In case the reader is unaware, Origin of Life research – as would be expected – has been a complete failure for the past 160 years. A verbatim quote from Dr. Paul Davies of ASU, a world recognized expert in Origin of Life: “How? We haven’t a clue.” (Dr. Davies also hasn’t yet figured out where that assembly line came from.) In other words, Darwin did nothing to help us understand the origin of the frighteningly complex machinery of a living bacterium.

What is absolutely amazing, though, is that despite what he said at NASA Park, no one presents a better case for a Creator of life than Dr. Leonard Susskind himself!

LeonardSusskindStanfordNov2013.jpg
Leonard Susskind/Acmedogs (CC)

In his book, The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics, he writes:

“It would be a bad idea to park your BMW in the rainforest for 500 years. When you came back, you’d find a pile of rust. If you left the pile of rust for another 500 years, you could be pretty sure it wouldn’t turn back into a working BMW. That in short is the Second Law of Thermodynamics…Both [the BMW and the rust heap] are collections of about 10 to the power of 28 atoms [a 1 followed by 28 zeroes], mostly iron. … More.

The rabbi then does the math on Susskind’s claims re the origin of life and things turn out pretty much as we’d expect.

It’s worth keeping in mind that, however else Darwinism functions, it function pretty much as a form of magic where the origin of vast, interlocking complex structures are concerned. And that’s not up for discussion.

See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

8 Replies to “Rabbi: Anti-design physicist makes the best case for design of life

  1. 1
    Otangelo Grasso says:

    life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever “get off the ground”. It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail “figuring out” how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can’t self-organize into instructions for building solar farms (photosystems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self repair (p53 tumor suppressor proteins) or self-destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    If the Universe was not designed but emerged through natural processes then it took around 13.75bn years to get from the Big Bang to us. Human science has only been working on the problem for the last few hundred years at best. The world doesn’t come with a set of technical manuals not even a Handy User’s Guide to the Universe – so we’ve had to start literally from scratch, no help from from anyone or anything. So, to just dismiss science and all it has learnt in such a relatively short period as insignificant is a little cavalier. To proclaim that because science does not yet have a good atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic account of origins, it never will is perhaps just a tad premature. Science freely admits that, there is still a great deal that isn’t known, that has yet to be explained. But in most if not all cases, nobody, not even religions, have anything better to offer..

  3. 3
    Otangelo Grasso says:

    To proclaim that because science does not yet have a good atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic account of origins, it never will is perhaps just a tad premature. //// Maybe not.. Which of the following is better explained by design, rather than non-design?

    Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

    Upon applying above logic, how is the following better explained, by design, or non-design ?

    – Components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner.

    – Intermediate sub-products which have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.

    – Instructional complex information which is required for to make these sub-products and parts, to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place, and interconnected correctly in a larger system.

    – The making of computer hardware, and highly efficient information storage devices.

    – Creating software, based on a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint.

    – Information retrieval, transmission, signaling, and translation

    – The make of machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit – like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self distruction when needed to reach a higher end, and veritable micro-miniaturized factories where all before-metioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional.

    – Establishment of advanced communication systems. Signal relay stations. Signal without recognition is meaningless. Communication implies a signaling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!” A transmitter and receiver system made of physical materials, with a functional purpose, performing an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them, acting as information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware )

    – Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and ability to minimize the effects of errors.

    – A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language, which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assign the code of one system to the code of another system.

    – The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems, and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and quality-management techniques.

    – The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex industry-like production networks known.

    – The implementation of a product making system, only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction.

    – Creating machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort.

    – The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers – regulatory mechanisms – and control networks and systems.

    – Error check and detection, inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading and repair mechanisms.

    – Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine.

    – Complex production lines which depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning.

    – Create complex systems which are able to adapt to variating conditions.

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    If I understand the Susskind quote, then he has a basic problem with logic. He says,“I don’t believe the universe was designed by an intelligence. I believe the universe was designed the same way the incredible human being was designed.” He then goes on to explain how Darwinian processes supposedly produced humans. So I ask, what Darwinian process produced in “the same way” the Universe? Even if one agrees with Darwin, that cannot explain how the Universe was designed. After that major glitch, whatever else he has to say may not be worth reading.

  5. 5

    And where did stable laws of physics come from?

  6. 6
    Otangelo Grasso says:

    Its

    – Cosmological Evolution
    – Chemical Evolution
    – Biological Evolution

    there is a solution to every problem of origins. Its called Evolution

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    If the Universe was not designed but emerged through natural processes then it took around 13.75bn years to get from the Big Bang to us.

    Natural processes only exist in nature and because of that cannot be responsible for its origin.

    So, to just dismiss science and all it has learnt in such a relatively short period as insignificant is a little cavalier.

    Only materialists dismiss science.

    To proclaim that because science does not yet have a good atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic account of origins, it never will is perhaps just a tad premature.

    It never will because there isn’t such a thing. Those people don’t even have a methodology to test their claims.

    But in most if not all cases, nobody, not even religions, have anything better to offer..

    That is your ignorant opinion. At least ID makes testable claims

  8. 8
    es58 says:

    Og@3 combining sevesky’s point of how little time science has been at it with your list, I’d say your list is just a good good start, the tip of the iceberg for what’s going to be found, and its already long buried his argument.

Leave a Reply