Recognizing Design is to the Engineer, as Seafaring is to the Seaman

_{Emily Morales

January 5, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

by Emily Morales

January 5th, 2020

Some months back, Norwegian ship-owner and engineer Einar Johan Rasmussen stirred up some controversy with a 1.6 million dollar contribution to the intelligent design organization BioCosmos. BioCosmos is calling for a more open debate on the power of materialistic processes in generating a highly ordered and fine-tuned universe, and life itself.

As expected, the usual cast of characters expressed their discontent: Martin Jacobsen, theologian at Ansgar Theological College remarked that naturalists are best suited to tell us about nature; and theologians, about God. I think most would concur. Might we further this brilliant line of thinking, acknowledging that engineers (such as Mr. Rasmussen) are supremely qualified to tell us about designed and engineered systems? For more on this story and a rationale as to why the billionaire philanthropist has the ideal credentials to opine on designed systems, check out the article below:

https://salvomag.com/post/in-defense-of-the-multi-billionaire-engineer

Having grown up in a family of engineers, and being an instructional designer myself in the sciences, there is something to be said for having the innate ability, and training for recognizing systems that are designed, as opposed to structures lacking design. Now note, that I did not say, “as opposed to systems lacking design,” because the term “system” denotes something that is highly ordered. Whenever any of us encounters something that is highly organized, we correctly assume there was a designing intelligence behind it – at least this is the assumption of reasonable people.

Even very small children have the capacity to recognize that highly organized systems are designed. Instinctively they know that sentient beings design and build complex things, which is why it is particularly challenging to teach them at a young age that purely materialistic processes gave rise to them! The language you need to use to teach them this is awkward. Little kids also do not readily receive this to the chagrin of many in contemporary science education; rather, children intuitively know that someone made them.

Comments

Silver Asiatic @ 7
We can actually test the case for design by attempting to create the biological feature using simulations of natural processes. If this fails, then the biological feature not only looks like design, but thus far the only way we can recreate it is through a design process.
That argument might work if we knew all possible naturalistic causal pathways and were able to exclude them but we simply don't know enough at this point to be able to say that,
Where has this kind of “balanced account” been offered in evolutionary research? Show how a cell is like a designed object and even far more sophisticated than what we design, then tell us how it is like an object created by random mutations. Then weigh the differences and conclude on which is the stronger proposition, design or chance? Is that the way evolutionary research works?
The cell is defined as:
...the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism, typically microscopic and consisting of cytoplasm and a nucleus enclosed in a membrane. Microscopic organisms typically consist of a single cell, which is either eukaryotic or prokaryotic.
A factory is defined as:
a building or group of buildings where goods are manufactured or assembled chiefly by machine.
Although there may be processes taking place in a cell that may be analogous to those happening in a factory, the latter is made of things like bricks, concrete, glass and steel, is thousands of times bigger and is unable to replicate itself. They are properties of human-designed objects but not microscopic biological entities. They alone should be enough to give pause before leaping to the conclusion of non-human intelligent design.
That may be the case, but the work of biomimetics indicates that we can learn a lot from the philosophy of design that we find on earth.

I agree. We have a lot to learn from the natural world but that is not enough in itself to conclude ID.Seversky_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

In that video with Venter and Dawkins in a panel discussion, Venter believes that there were multiple origin of life events also. He just calmly accepts that inert chemicals spontaneously assembled into living organisms on multiple, independent occasions.Silver Asiatic_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @42 you wrote: "The origin of life is like the origin of the universe. It appears to be a singular, non-repeating, highly improbable event which occurred very early in earth’s history. " good point... the same for the PHOTOSYNTHESIS.... PHOTOSYNTHESIS, according to mainstream science, is also a singular, non-repeating event. Happened only once, occurred very early in earth’s history. ... and that is it... And what about viruses ? The origin of viruses also seems to be a singular, non-repeating event... To explain the existence of viruses - it is like to explain the origin of life thousand times if not hundreds thousand times ... ... because each virus is unique... moreover, the idea of common ancestor does not work with viruses, for a simple reason - viruses are not made of cells... it is a completely different 'system'.... SUCH AN IRONY .... a virus - the most abundant organism on Earth, but Darwinian evolutionary theory can't explain the existence of the most abundant organism on Earth... from Virology.ws: " Viruses are polyphyletic In a phylogenetic tree, the characteristics of members of taxa are inherited from previous ancestors. Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic – they have many evolutionary origins. There are no ancestral viral lineages No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses. There are common protein motifs in viral capsids, but these have likely come about through convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer." http://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/martin_r_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

The following is something that I have written about couple times before, on other threads, which I think is worth is repeating here, again.
The origin of life is like the origin of the universe. It appears to be a singular, non-repeating, highly improbable event which occurred very early in earth’s history. Furthermore, all the clues of how and why it occurred have been lost. But then added to that problem are other problems: how does chemistry create code? What is required to create an autonomously self-replicating system which has the possibility of evolving into something more complex? The naturalist/ materialist then compounds the problem by demanding a priori that the origin of life must be completely natural– undirected without an intelligent plan or purpose. That seems like it was a miracle… Well, maybe it was. But a completely “naturalistic miracle” seems to be an absurd self-defeating claim for the naturalist/materialist to make. One of my pipe dreams as a real life (now retired) machine designer is to design a self-replicating machine or automata– the kind that was first envisioned by mathematician John von Neumann. My vision is not a machine that could replicate itself from already existing parts but a machine– well actually a system of “symbiotic” machines– which could replicate themselves from raw material they would find on a rocky planet in some distant star system. One practical advantage of such machines is they could be sent out in advance some far-in-the-distant-future expedition to terraform a suitable planet in another star system preparing it for colonist who might arrive centuries or millennia later. By analogy, that is what the first living cells which originated on the early earth had to do. Even the simplest prokaryote cell is on the sub-cellular level a collection of machines networked together to replicate the whole system. To suggest that somehow the first cell emerged by some fortuitous accident is betray an ignorance how really complex primitive cells are. Try thinking this through on a more macro level, as I have described above, and I think you will begin to appreciate how really daunting the problem is.
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-ool-part-of-darwinian-evolution/#comment-634766 The whole thread by Eric Andersen, is not very long and IMO is worth reading. Notice how quickly our regular interlocutors bailed out of the discussion. But at least some of them weighted in.john_a_designer_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Ed:
yes, some chemical reactions are very difficult to initiate, but others are just as difficult to prevent.
Materialism cannot account for chemicals, let alone their reactions.
Tour was talking about organic enzymes as if they are the only catalyst available.
You couldn't support that claim if your life depended on it.
I work in the analytical chemistry field which often requires converting the compound of interest into another one that can be measured spectrophotometrically.
I worked in a field that required the measurement of compounds via ion trap mobility spectrometry.
And many of these reactions occur naturally.
How do you know? You have to demonstrate that nature produced the elements and chemicals. You cannot do that. Not only that you cannot demonstrate that such reactions can produce biologically relevant replicators. That means your entire charade is a strawman.ET_{January 8, 2020
January
01
Jan
8
08
2020
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Emily@38, yes, some chemical reactions are very difficult to initiate, but others are just as difficult to prevent. Tour was talking about organic enzymes as if they are the only catalyst available. I work in the analytical chemistry field which often requires converting the compound of interest into another one that can be measured spectrophotometrically (it’s a big word ET, you may need a dictionary). We often use various metals (eg, mercury, tin or cadmium) or other inorganic compounds (eg, hydrazine) catalyze the necessary reactions. No enzymes needed. And many of these reactions occur naturally.Ed George_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

ET at Comment 34: Yes, your clarification of my statement is true. It is interesting, however, how scientists assert materialistic causes without proof, and even with significant doubt!Emily Morales_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Martin_r at Comment 33 - I love this speech by James Tour. He is exactly correct when he characterizes chemical synthesis being this fussy! I had a chemical reaction go VERY wrong in a student lab, simply because the student allowed the solution to get just a little too hot. Rather than ending up with a beautiful blue, crystallized precipitate, I ended up with black powder that was the consequence of one of those nasty "side" reactions.Emily Morales_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @31 and one more very funny video featuring Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins!!! (for those who havent seen it yet - MAKE SURE YOU WATCH IT) it is only 3 minutes long, but very funny! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c43ckMLN50Qmartin_r_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer @31 i am glad you have mentioned Craig Venter (a guy who designed the first synthetic genome ) i can recall some very funny video with this guy ... it is only 3 minutes long... everybody should watch it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZjfURnK-xcmartin_r_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

. We call the gene is a symbol system because symbol systems have a physical instantiation that can be uniquely identified and studied, and the gene system has been thus identified. But that is only the beginning of the issue; to have a symbol system become semantically closed is a sheer vertical face, and mere dynamics do not climb it.Upright BiPed_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Hi Emily. You say:
I think it’s not a fair question to necessarily ask what an expert thinks concerning the origins of DNA as Peter is in comment #25.
What if the expert says "we don't know", which is a fact? The only thing that wouldn't be fair is to accept said expert's word absent supporting evidence.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Emily @32 i am glad you liked my comment ... it is crazy that this is still happening in 21st century. I wish more engineers take a closer look at biology / mulecular biology like i did ... Also, i am glad you have mentioned prof. James Tour. I have exchanged a few emails with him. I like this guy. Finally someone very trustworthy AND VERY COMPETENT who is not afraid to speak out. You have to understand, prof. Tour owns like 100 chemical patents - therefore, he doesn't need other people money (grants). They don't own him, and he can speak out ... Most scientists are in conflict of interest. It is clear, that this topic is politically very sensitive ... this is why the darwinian evolutionary theory is still alive ... they just can't admit what the science found... it would be a disaster ... like i said, it is politically very sensitive topic ... could change the world to admit (officially), that life was created ... P.S. i like prof. James Tour's sense of humor, this is my favorite part (from one of his lecture) (at 22:05) https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg?t=1331martin_r_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

I think it's not a fair question to necessarily ask what an expert thinks concerning the origins of DNA as Peter is in comment #25. The problem today is there is so much pressure for researchers to accept the materialism paradigm, that most are not comfortable coming to conclusions (much less expressing them) that do not support it. How many instructors have been denied tenure, denied funding, denied a research grant, denied this and that because they did not adhere to the Darwinian hypothesis for origin of life and origin of species? Well, many. Ask Richard Sternberg what happened to him at the Smithsonian for merely making a passive reference to Stephen Meyer! Guillermo Gonzales for daring to write on The Privileged Planet. I think if the pressure were off, the scientists might be more honest. James Tour, researcher at Rice University and a synthetic chemist has commented at length on just how difficult it is to make even the simplest of molecules.Emily Morales_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

According to Genomics entrepreneur and researcher Craig Venter: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions.” In other words, even the most basic prokaryotic cell is an integrated self-replicating system of machines-- very complex efficient operating machines. Human designers have no clue how to replicate that kind of design. If you know how go ahead and tell us how.john_a_designer_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Yes, Larry Moran believes that the genetic code arose via blind and mindless processes. No, Larry Moran doesn't have any evidence to support his belief.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Pater:
And having worked with DNA for his entire career, what has Larry Moran concluded about it’s origins?
I know that he doesn't have any evidence that blond and mindless processes did it. If he does then he has kept it from peer-review. But that is moot as Larry refuted your claim.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

1, Blind, unintelligent material processes do not produce sophisticated informational systems 2. Cellular functions include sophisticated informational systems. 3. Therefore … [skipping unnecessary argumentation] ID is correct.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Maybe Larry Moran can tell us how the blind watchmaker created genetic code. Better yet, maybe he can just demonstrate it. It shouldn't be a problem. He's been working with DNA his whole career.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Notice that our interlocutors are not really making any kind of valid argument. Rather they are simply dismissing the logical possibility that life could be designed because that is what they believe a priori. If one doesn’t believe that it is possible that life could be designed then that person needs to logically refute that claim. In other words, he needs to prove that it’s logically impossible for life to be designed. His personal incredulity proves nothing. Notice all the following quotes are from men who believe that evolution is a mindless and purposeless process. (HT: BA77)
“This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947 “living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed” Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978) “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990) “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed? The main argument for the design then can be stated very simply:
1. If it appears to be designed, it really could be designed. 2. Even the simplest self-replicating life forms, like Mycoplasma genitalium, appears to be designed. 3. Therefore, it really could be designed.
In other words, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility that it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so.john_a_designer_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

And having worked with DNA for his entire career, what has Larry Moran concluded about it's origins?Pater Kimbridge_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Pater:
Codes are symbols. RNA molecules are molecules.
And mRNA molecules REPRESENT their respective amino acids. The mRNA codons are the symbols, Pater. Even the anti-IDist Larry Moran agrees the genetic is a Real Genetic Code It is NOT an analogy. It is NOT a metaphor.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

. Stop signs are metal. Spoken language is vibrations in air pressure. Have you ever studied the physics of symbol systems? Who did you study? What did you learn from it? By the way, you didn't answer my question: Was it a lucky guess or a logical deduction? If the latter, why?Upright BiPed_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Martin_r, you added so much to this post. Thank you for providing rational, logical reasons why materialism is untenable as a mechanism for origin of life and origin of species. As a biology undergraduate, it was not the general biology, ecology, or evolution classes that raised as much doubt concerning the ability of materialism to yield order, as much as the classes in developmental biology, molecular genetics, and immunology - to name a few. When you study the VERY STRUCTURES and PROCESSES that Darwinian forces act on, and then try to literally make inferences from this, its absolutely impossible. I must say that my background in building model airplanes, sewing, woodworking, and numerous other hobbies also introduced skepticism for the very reasons you provided in your original post. It would seem that anyone looking at molecular structures and processes would see the obvious hand of design. But, if they have a stakeholder interest in being an atheist - they will deny what their very eyes tell them.Emily Morales_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Codes are symbols. RNA molecules are molecules. Still an analogy.Pater Kimbridge_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

PK, von Neumann 1948. Encoded quiescent description. Crick, Brenner, 1961. Code May I ask a question of you. In 1958 when Crick predicted a set of adapters would be found acting in the translation system, it would demonstrate the discontinuous association required for the system to function. Was Crick just making a lucky wild-assed guess, or was it a logical deduction? If the latter, why?Upright BiPed_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

For ANYONE who does NOT like the design inference, YOU have ALL of the power! All YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce whatever it is we say was intelligently designed and you win! You hate analogies for the mere fact that your side doesn't have any.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Pater- the GENETIC code is a real code. DNA is only part of it. And if you and your had ANY evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce genomes you have kept it out of peer-review.ET_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Show us how the Blind Watchmaker created the DNA information system. Call it code or whatever you want. It should be easy to demonstrate.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Just because one one squiggly line looks like another one, doesn't mean C02 causes Global Warming. Andrewasauber_{January 7, 2020
January
01
Jan
7
07
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply