Intelligent Design

The Salem Hypothesis is True, and That’s Great for ID

Spread the love

Someone in the comments mentioned the Salem Hypothesis. For those who don’t know what this is, it is basically the idea that people with advanced degrees who criticize evolution tend to be engineers, not scientists.

This is supposed to be levied as a diss on the critics of evolution, but I’ve never understood why this is so. Intelligent Design focuses on the *requirements* for the development of intricate, purposeful systems. Is there a science that focuses on developing intricate, purposeful systems? That might know what the requirements of building such systems are? Anyone?

Perhaps the reason that engineers are more likely to be critical of evolution, is because evolution actually is more of a question of engineering than biology, as it deals with the development of the most intricate, purposeful systems available. Thus, the field of study most likely to be able to correctly analyze this question would, in fact, be engineers.

Biologists are rarely, if ever, tasked with building biosystems. That isn’t what they do. They study biosystems. They analyze biosystems. But it is the rare biologist who actually builds a metabolic network from scratch.

But engineers have to build things continually. That’s what they do every single day. Therefore, while engineers are much less likely to know the details of *how* a biosystem operates, or how to investigate such operations, they are *more* likely to know what the requirements are for building such systems from precursors, and have more tools at their disposal for the analysis.

So, in short, I think the Salem Hypothesis has a lot going for it, and it is a reason that we should think *more* highly of Intelligent Design, not less so.

On an additional note, the bench scientist who has the most well-known association with ID is James Tour, who—wait for it—*builds* chemical systems.

61 Replies to “The Salem Hypothesis is True, and That’s Great for ID

  1. 1
    Fasteddious says:

    Thank you for this. As an Engineer myself, the constructive, mathematical, probabilistic, repair and replication, and systems problems associated with any sort of materialistic, natural origin and development of life are so obviously insurmountable, that ID appears as the only viable alternative. Almost every aspect of living systems points to exquisite design.

  2. 2
    EricMH says:

    Plus, we can run evolutionary algorithms at scales that dwarf biological evolution. If Darwinism is really the magic sauce generating the biological complexity and diversity around us, then we should be able to perform amazing feats of engineering just by running a simple EA. Yet, as my MSc advisor (world recognized EA expert) pointed out to me, often you can get pretty comparable performance to an EA just by running a random search. EAs are not very good at finding even passable solutions, and their search domain is much more constrained than biological evolution, so it would be extraordinarily surprising if an EA generated all the organisms we see today.

    Also, that is completely ignoring the difficulty in creating a replicating digital code with error correction. Highly non trivial. Definitely not possible with randomly directed processes.

    Finally, we can formally prove this is all unexpected within computable physics with Leonid Levin’s law of information non-growth.

  3. 3
    Ed George says:

    For those who don’t know what this is, it is basically the idea that people with advanced degrees who criticize evolution tend to be engineers, not scientists.

    I would argue that engineers, when doing work in their field, are scientists. But when they get beyond their field of expertise, they are legitimately open to criticism. If they can competently respond to this criticism, then the should be given respect. After all, how many of us have ended up in a career that we were “educated” in.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    It’s not so much complexity as reality. Engineers have to make things that work. Simple things usually work better than complex things. Engineers can’t afford to indulge in bizarre sci-fi theories like “evolution” or “global warming”, because a bridge built with theories will kill people. When you design a bridge or an airplane that crashes, you lose your job and you may end up in jail.

    Physicists have the opposite incentive. They get big grants and Nobel Prizes for developing black holes that will obliterate the universe, and for destroying all industries and farms and skills with Green laws.

  5. 5
    Mimus says:

    Engineering does seem to spawn a lot of cranks across the board: climate denial, HIV denial even Cantor/infinity cranism seems to overrepresented among engineers.

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    P

    Engineers can’t afford to indulge in bizarre sci-fi theories like “evolution” or “global warming”, because a bridge built with theories will kill people.

    Bridges are built with theories in mind all of the time.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470172889

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Engineering and biology appear to go hand in hand-> Approaching Biology From a Different Angle:

    Systems biology is a loosely defined term, but the main idea is that biology is an information science, with genes a sort of digital code. Moreover, while much of molecular biology has involved studying a single gene or protein in depth, systems biology looks at the bigger picture, how all the genes and proteins interact. Ultimately the goal is to develop computer models that can predict the behavior of cells or organisms, much as Boeing can simulate how a plane will fly before it is built.

    But such a task requires biologists to team up with computer scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    the Salem Hypothesis

    Looks like it originated on the talk origins blog.
    They’re trying to understand the creationism/evolution debate, and a blogger there offered a speculation about it.
    Even after that, I don’t think they understand the debate yet.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    The Salem Hypothesis can be viewed as a specific instance of a more general observation, which is that expertise in one field does not necessarily translate into expertise in a different field, even when said experts have the hubris to think it does.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev (attn EG, Mimus et al),

    FYI, it is engineers, applied physical and chemical scientists, computer scientists and applied mathematicians who have expertise in the development of complex, information driven coherent, configuration-dependent functional systems and in nanotechnology.

    It is no accident that it was physicists, Mathematicians and engineers who pioneered both Analogue [Kelvin mechanical Integrator] and digital [Think, Babbage’s Difference and Analytical Engines (and his linked advancement of machine tools) the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, the Zuse Machine, Turing et al and Colossus etc], as well as the framework for a self-replicating machine [von Neumann kinematic self-replicator]. This last directly predicted the presence of a coded control tape in such a machine c 1948.

    It is thermodynamicists who understand the limitations of spontaneous origin of complex, coherent, code based systems from undirected behaviour of configuration or phase space systems. For example, here are Davies and Walker, as has been pointed out to you and your ilk many times here at UD:

    In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

    We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

    [–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

    Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

    It seems, the expertise shoe is on the other foot.

    KF

    PS: Mimus, the list of scientific and medical cranks or outright charlatans is quite long. The problem is a human one, not confined to engineering and/or applied science.

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    another engineer here (a mechanical engineer, university degree, EUROPE, please ignore my bad English)

    sure i heard of the salem hypothesis, the same is observed with medical doctors (see wikipedia for the definition)

    these biologists – natural science graduates – have a ‘scientific’ theory :))))

    In 21st century, biologists, natural science graduates, seriously claim, that sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems somehow designed by its own, and then, somehow assembled together, all by its own, with no help from engineers.

    This is what these natural science graduates (biologists) seriously claim in 21st century!!!
    Autonomous self-navigating flying systems !!!

    Moreover, these biologists seriously claim, that this miracle did not happen once, but multiple times independently (insect, birds, flying dinosaurs, mammals) These species are evolutionary not related !!

    So how absurd it is ? it is absurd! absurd! absurd !!!!!! crazy!!! insane !!! ridiculous !!!

    Especially in 21st century!!!

    Because in 21st century, we already have lots of knowledge about how to design autonomous systems :))))

    Dear biologists, i can assure you, to design an autonomous flying system is not a simple feat :))))))

    And still, such a human autonomous system is a joke compared to the sophisticated systems like birds or flying insects.

    To design a miniature autonomous flying system of a size of a fruit fly, is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century!!!

    a SCI-FI !!!

    I am not sure, i am an engineer, but these biologists need to see a doctor, who can help them with their mental problems … especially in 21st century…

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    seversky @9

    ” which is that expertise in one field does not necessarily translate into expertise in a different field,”

    don’t be ridiculous

    especially in 21st century….

    Engineers have the knowledge… they know whats needed to design autonomous self-navigating flying systems :)))

    And no biologist, archeologist or paleontologist can change it. In fact, this is the ultimate proof, that the evolutionary theory is WRONG AND ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEGREE (like Darwin would say)

    In 21st century, we engineers know, that very advanced and sophisticated autonomous self-navigating flying systems do not design by it own, just so, from zero :))) you need a group of engineers from various fields… you need LOTS OF KNOWLEDGE ….

    yes, our Creator is a master designer / engineer, skilled to design high advanced flying systems using only molecules synthesis…. it is an engineering SCI-FI

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    like i said in my previous posts, i am a mechanical engineer. I started to study biology, including molecular biology several years ago. Because i was curious how these things are done.

    One day i came across the information, that cells are using DNA proofreading / repair systems. First i thought, that these biologists are joking or something … how these insane people can even think, that some proofreading / repair system can design by its own ? Are these people mentally ill or something ?

    IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING IN 21ST CENTURY ???

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    MR, welcome to UD. You left off the fun part, self-replicating based on molecular, digital code using nanotech. Digital, NC machine code is applied language and logic of processes implying algorithms, data structures and regulated execution machinery. That alone is sufficient to effectively demand explanation on design by language using deeply knowledgeable highly capable intelligence. We have trillions of examples of such systems known to have come about through design, on observation. The blind search in config spaces beyond 3.27*10^150 to 1.07 * 10^301 states [500 – 1,000 bits] on gamut of sol system or observed cosmos challenge backs up such observations. KF

    PS: We are seeing ideological imposition and faction dynamics in relevant disciplines and the wider culture. It is not insanity as such, but ideological blind spots and vested interests in cultural agendas as well as buy-in on major myths about sci-tech progress vsthe backwardness and totalitarian tendencies of “religion” esp so-called fundamentalism [now largely an ill-anchored term of scapegoating and contempt, which has long since been kidnapped and held hostage from its proper sense of adherence to core creed-linked, historically well justified canons of orthodox Christian faith].

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Just to remind those caught up in the ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, here is a classic cat out of the bag moment:

    . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    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 [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], 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.]

    And here is the more official form, from the US NSTA, National Science Teachers Association:

    All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [–> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [–> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [–> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [–> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, 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 methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [–> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [–> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [–> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that’s why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [–> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [–> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [–> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [–> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]

  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    EricMH @ 2

    i am a mechanical engineer (EUROPE)

    you have mentioned evolutionary / genetic algorithms (EA/GA)

    i debated lots of evolutionists in our big local papers, they also often argued that EA can do miracles.
    Because i as a engineer never heard of EA, neither my colleagues, i looked deeper into EA.
    What i found was, that EA is a fancy word for optimization algorithms (OA) …this is nothing new…just a fancy word to label the same thing…

    Moreover, i did my own survey, i contacted the biggest robotics companies across the World, the ones specialized in humanoid robots design. I wanted to find out whether their engineers use EA/GA when design robots. For example, I was unable to get an answer from Boston Dynamics.

    However, i did receive some answers,
    i was not surprised, it just confirmed what i wrote above.

    This is how some of them replied (all answers were very brief and clear )

    A robotics company from SPAIN:

    “Our engineers do not use GA/EA in our company and due to that, I can not help you with much more. Here is another link where you can have some information. Wishing you all the best.”

    —-

    A robotics company from KOREA (this engineer even mistaken computer coding scripts with EA)

    “”I can’t confirm in which code our companyis using Evolutionary algorithm, but if it can’t be found from our GitHub repositories, it is not disclosed nor exist. I’m also not familiar to the aforementioned algorithm, but I’ve learned a bit by searching google and reading papers so you’ll be able to find appropriate situation where you can use the algorithm. Thank you for enlightening me with the EA 😀 ”

    —-
    Another company from Italy::

    “”Quick answers: Engineer20+ years, No, we haven’t used genetic/evolutionary algorithms.””

    —-
    Another company from Italy (this guy is also an university professor, an academic):

    “Unfortunately I am an academic so I cannot give you an answer from the point of view of a person from industry but I will try to answer anyway. From the research perspective there is a considerable activity on GE and I see an increasing interest in EA (as a precursor of embodied/interactive learning). From my personal experience I agree with you in that I don’t see a lot of activity around this topics in the robotics industry.”

    —-
    another company from FRANCE:

    “No we haven’t used such technique in real cases. It seems a great tool allowing the exploration of different design/approach. Yet, I have only seen such uses in research applications atm. ”

    —-

    and so on….

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    earth’s species = very advanced engineering. period.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    only a very insane person can believe, that an ecosystem can be designed by a serie of lucky accidents.

    here humans tried to design an ecosystem – was a disaster

    Project Biosphere 2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

    PS: everything requires an engineer.

  19. 19
    Bob O'H says:

    Biologists are rarely, if ever, tasked with building biosystems. That isn’t what they do. They study biosystems. They analyze biosystems. But it is the rare biologist who actually builds a metabolic network from scratch.

    The same could be said about engineers. But if I wanted someone to build a metabolic network, I think I might go for the person who knows a bit about enzymes and how they work.

    Biologists aren’t idiots (well, most aren’t): they have been studying “the development of intricate, purposeful systems”: that’s what systems biology does. And developmental biology. And how they came about? That’s what evo-devo is. I’m sure engineers could do a lot to help in these fields (above and beyond building our labs and equipment), but the first thing they would have to do is learn a lot of biology, and also how to talk to biologists.

  20. 20
    martin_r says:

    BobOH @19

    “Biologists aren’t idiots ”

    i am not so sure… i am an engineer, but what their theory suggest, sounds very insane…. especially in 21st century…

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    let me add another post … (like i said, i am a mechanical engineer who loves to study biology)

    most people don’t realize one thing (when speaking about species’ design)

    there are multiple levels of design, let me describe the basic ones:

    for instance, a hummingbird:

    1. the design of the species itself (the body and wing geometry, the very special trajectory of the wing-flap, the frequency of wing flaps, proper body weight and so on…)

    2. the design of species’ auto-assembly process – from the single cell to the complete flying bird, it is a step-by-step assembly process, no material /parts suppliers are needed, no assembly-workers are needed either….this is an engineering SCI-FI … the cell does it everything, like a very advanced 3D printer… it produces all the materials needed, it also creates all the body parts needed for the fly. Someone had to specify the auto-assembly steps in advance (a common 3D printer needs a software to be uploaded, it also needs so called FILAMENT – this is the material part, it also needs to be connected to electricity… )

    3. the chemical design of proper materials needed to support very demanding autonomous flying systems like a hummingbird …its wings flap up to 200 times per second… this is not an easy feat.

    4. Repair / self-maintenance process … almost everything in nature gets repaired, auto-repaired…. Someone had to design the auto-repair process… you need to know what to repair, when, and how to repair it .. THIS REQUIRES AN ENGINEER, but i am glad that biologists, archeologists and paleontologists have their absurd theory …

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H & MR:

    It is fair comment to note that one can be intelligent, an adept with a body of accepted knowledge and yet be captive to an ideological agenda that is deeply problematic. Notice, Lewontin as clipped above on the elites imposing “a correct [world-]view” on the recalcitrant masses captive to demons of their imagination.

    That speaks of an elite locked into a worldview and cultural agenda, evolutionary materialistic scientism. Further, it speaks of presuming to holding the keys to correct understanding of the world, thus the right to steamroller opposition rooted in what it views as delusional superstition. In short, there is already a clear projection of borderline insanity to a very large proportion of the world’s people across time, compounded by the perception that the elites are the bright ones sitting together in command of “a correct [world-]view.”

    That is an inherently dangerous combination when — as we have seen over the past year or so, evolutionary materialistic scientism tends to reject self-evident, inescapably true first principles and duties of reason. Which, are plumbline tests of our yardsticks.

    Further, it is long since obvious that evolutionary materialistic scientism is irretrievably self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. Haldane provides a classic case in brief, which can be elaborated and drawn out in detail:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    Evolutionary materialistic scientism is inherently irrational and necessarily false by way of self-referential incoherence. While irrationality is not insanity . . . we all struggle to be reasonable and responsible . . . it is a serious problem. When it is compounded by the sort of ideological imposition by power and prestige we can see outlined by Lewontin and corroborated by the NSTA and other cases that can be cited, that shows a dangerous closed mindedness that will resist correction. It is not for nothing that Jesus of Nazareth once warned some people of their sad condition: “BECAUSE I tell the truth, you are unable to believe it.”

    If one makes a crooked yardstick his standard of reference, what is genuinely straight, accurate and upright will never pass the test of conformity to crookedness. Even, in some cases, when one is seeing a naturally straight and upright plumb-line.

    Further to such, for a great many years now, it is clear that no degree of empirical evidence that functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] on trillions of observed cases is only seen to come about by intelligently directed configuration and no analysis of the blind, needle in haystack search challenge with inadequate resources posed by config spaces of 500 – 1,000 bits and beyond on gamut of the sol system or observed cosmos will move those committed to evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which, before we even get there, is self-refuting.

    I also draw attention to the issue that in the world of life we see information systems using copious quantities of digital, coded information and associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. Among other things, this builds the workhorse protein molecules and is deeply embedded in the von Neumann kinematic self replication facility involved in cellular self-replication. Language, codes, information, communication and control systems are strong signatures of design.

    KF

  23. 23
    BobRyan says:

    I have noticed Darwinists like to throw in climate regardless of the debate. They tend to be fond of using science denier as a means of feeling superior, but they have no actual science to support their theory of evolution and deny science in the process. Macro-evolution has never been observed and never been replicated. Anyone who claims macro-evolution is a valid scientific theory is a science denier by default.

    Climate has always been changing and will always change. In 1860, the little ice age came to an end and gradual warming has been happening since. Had there been no warming, we would still be in the little ice age.

    Those who claim man made climate change, rather than a natural phenomena, are also the ones claiming to be able to have no CO2 as a real possibility. All animals are carbon based and produce CO2 even after they die. CO2 is also quite heavy and stays low to the ground, which is a good thing. Plants need CO2 to survive and produce oxygen. It is not a greenhouse gas and never has been, but it does not matter to those who deny science on a daily basis.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Evo-devo has been a huge bust, Bob. Biologists still don’t even know what determines form.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    “I have noticed Darwinists like to throw in climate regardless of the debate.”

    It’s a mental illness. I’m not joking.

    Andrew

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    MR

    Are these people mentally ill or something ?

    I agree with your frustration. I run out of descriptives – absurd, ridiculous … it’s impossible to exaggerate.

    Beyond the physical engineering, supposedly accomplished without a blueprint, with no foresight for future needs – built through random variables (ever-changing environment and lucky-mutations) … all that and the same blind, mindless, unintelligent, unguided effects created conscious, rational, intelligent minds.

    As you mentioned also, nobody uses evolutionary algorithims to engineer AI systems or robotics. It’s all done from Intelligent Design.

    First i thought, that these biologists are joking or something … how these insane people can even think, that some proofreading / repair system can design by its own ?

    I think many of them really are joking. They’re having a laugh at the expense of the public. The entire thing is a scam, perpetuated to support their atheism, and amazingly, they keep getting away with it. They have layers and layers of protective-cover from schools, publishers, journalists and among the scientific organizations that they own.

    It’s truly one of the most amazing intellectual-delusions that the human race has ever encountered. It’s like one of the great false religions that had millions of worshippers and was protected by a priestly cast. I think of ancient Aztec worship or Greek paganism. The priests or wizards made up various stories about the gods. The public believed it.

  27. 27
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob O’H

    they have been studying “the development of intricate, purposeful systems”: that’s what systems biology does.

    They explain what they observe. This really has nothing to do with evolution except, quite often, they’ll just say “over time this feature evolved”. They obviously cannot explain the ancient origin of something that they are still trying to figure out how it works in the present day.

    And developmental biology. And how they came about?

    Any manner of speculations are offered and there isn’t even a consensus view on what could have caused the development of biological systems.

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Just published:

    Is Evolution Wrong?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWsvtL16_k

    Four evolutionists. Totally confused, contradictory, double-speak.

    Zanna Clay: “Nobody in evolutionary research is arguing that we should abandon Darwin. We just need to expand our appreciation of other effects that weren’t explained by the Modern Synthesis.”
    Interviewer: “empathy in animals, for example, there must be a gene for that”.
    ZC: “But nobody is saying that. I don’t know any scientist who would say that.”
    Pigliucci: “Oh, I do. I won’t mention names – Richard Dawkins”.
    ZC: “Well, I disagree with those kinds of scientists. I mean, it’s not what most people in the field are debating”.
    Interviewer: “It’s the ghost of Richard Dawkins”.
    ZC: Yes, it’s a bit of a PR crisis.
    Interviewer: It is a PR crisis.
    ZC: Anyone seriously studying these processes theories knows that like it’s it it like – theories of evolution would never dismiss the role environment and development play in shaping these behaviors.

  29. 29
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    There is a big problem with Establishment Biologists.
    They are known liars, to hundreds of millions of students.
    Please allow me to prove this claim.

    Take almost any High School Biology textbook.
    Fist look at the list of dozens of top name establishment Biologists who were contributors, editors, etc. for the book
    Then look at the part about Origin of Life, and the vaunted Miller Urey Experiment of 1952.
    (And as top Origin of Life Researchers have pointed out, little progress has been made since 1952)

    These textbooks give the impression, and most of them explicitly state, that Drs Miller and Urey demonstrated making of “building blocks of life” from common chemicals. Except they didn’t.

    The problem is “chirality”, (Chirality is whether a molecule is left handed or right handed).
    Living things are made out of homochiral amino acids. (All of them are one handed). Miller and Urey didn’t make homochiral amino acids. They made racemic (mixed left and right handed) amino acids. Racemic amino acids are the building blocks of certain cosmetics, but not of living things.

    So the Miller Urey experiment did not demonstrate that making the building blocks of life is reasonably simple.
    Instead, it demonstrated that the building blocks of life are almost impossible to make.

    Any competent biologist knows this.
    And yet Science textbooks have been making and are still making these false claims for almost 70 years.
    Now, are we to believe that these dozens of top establishment Biologists are all ignorant and incompetent ? No.
    Thus they are liars.

  30. 30
    Axel says:

    WELCOME Martin-r ! You’ve found a home here, all right. These people have to deal with ‘nut-job’ atheists on here every day.

  31. 31
    Sven Mil says:

    “Therefore, while engineers are much less likely to know the details of *how* a biosystem operates, or how to investigate such operations, they are *more* likely to know what the requirements are for building such systems from precursors, and have more tools at their disposal for the analysis.”

    Read:
    “They can have no knowledge of biology, but should be able to explain biology”

    Yeah, that is exactly what goes on here at UD.

  32. 32
    Axel says:

    Your #21, Martin-r

    You might as well be talking to a brick wall …. or a humming bird, Martin. The Darwinists here no speaka da English, if it is intended to convey rational arguments.

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    Your #29, TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
    ‘There is a big problem with Establishment Biologists.
    They are known liars, to hundreds of millions of students.’

    Don’t hold back, Tammy ! Speak your mind.
    Women don’t take prisoners ! (chortle chortle)

  34. 34

    #31

    The proof is in the pudding. so to speak.

    On certain topics important to design, like whole systems for instance, non-biologists (like a computer scientist) have described the requirements of certain biological systems far more effectively than the biologists actually studying the system. Some people (particularly those in very good position to make such pronouncements) would say that this odd (and completely unnecessary) disparity between the views of biologists and others outside biology continues even to this day.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Yes, Sven, we all know that you don’t know how to read for comprehension. Today’s engineers know more about biology than Darwin did. And the anti-ID people posting here have never shown knowledge of biology. They always seem to be absent in threads discussing the science and evidence.

    Why is that?

  36. 36
    Nonlin.org says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @29

    Correct. And here are two eye-opening presentations everyone should see:
    Abiogenesis: The Faith and the Facts
    James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    ‘Why is that?’
    A simple phrase, ET. But in the context, hilarious. Such an innocent-sounding question. Not !
    We wait with bated breath.

  38. 38
    aarceng says:

    EricMH @ 2
    “Plus, we can run evolutionary algorithms at scales that dwarf biological evolution.”
    An evolutionary algorithm is simply a glorified trial and error solution, something engineers have done with paper and pencil for centuries. The computer just allows many more trials and errors.

  39. 39
    BobRyan says:

    asauber @ 25

    A little late replay from this end. It is mass hysteria and no amount of logic can permeate their emotionally driven hype. Mass hysteria is never a good thing and enables people to do things they would not otherwise do.

  40. 40
    martin_r says:

    aarceng @38

    “(EA) The computer just allows many more trials and errors.”

    some of you already noticed, that i am a mechanical engineer.
    I study lots of biology …. it is my hobby.

    The problem with biology is, that i can NOT see any errors.
    All species are flawless. That is the fact. Everything works perfectly.
    There are about 10,000,000 kinds of species on Earth. Lets say, that each species has like 1000 parts working in concert.
    That is about 10,000,000 x 1000 = 10,000,000,000 parts working in concert.
    How many design flaws have biologists (natural science graduates) found ? 5 ? 10 ? :))))))

    10 out of 10,000,000,000 ???? :))))))

    Even those ‘errors’ found by biologists (natural science graduates) are no errors…. they think these are some design flaws. Of course, biologists are wrong, as always… THERE ARE NO DESIGN FLAWS IN NATURE. IT IS AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE!!!!

    LET ME REPEAT THAT:

    EVERY SINGLE SPECIES IS AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE ….

    Can someone explain to me, how is a biologist – a natural science graduate – qualified to review a very advanced design and conclude what is good and whats bad design ? Can someone explain to me, how is a professor of biology (e.g. R Dawkins) qualified to talk about very advanced engineering ?

    A PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY ??? NATURAL SCIENCE GRADUATE ???
    HOW IS THIS GUY QUALIFIED TO REVIEW AN ENGINEERING MASTERPIECE BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION ???

    Could someone call the doctor ?

  41. 41
    martin_r says:

    let me repeat that once again – i am a mechanical engineer from EUROPE.

    when i debate evolutionists in our big local paper, they love to talk about critical thinking, that i am missing it and bla bla bla….

    i never understood this:

    when an archeologist digs up a broken jar made of stupid clay – it is a design.
    next to that jar, they dig up a sophisticated skeleton of a dinosaur …
    the skeleton includes iconic engineering elements like joints….
    a skeleton made of HI-TECH MATERIAL (lightweight and very strong)

    but this time, they concluded, NO DESIGN .

    so who is missing critical thinking ?

  42. 42
    EugeneS says:

    I propose the following hypithesis: a majority of supporters of evolution are poor theorists, not applied scientists or practitioners.

  43. 43
    redwave says:

    The animosity toward creationism, creationists, feels thick and heavy in Western Civilization beyond a simple derogation, beyond a preferential choice against ideas and beliefs. At bottom (at the root) contemporary Western society has decided science, scientific ideas and beliefs, must exhibit intolerance toward any and every idea and belief which does not conform to prevailing assumptions and explanations, regardless of evidentiary data and often without real empirical ground. There are correct (expected) words and phrases, thought forms, that must be expressed, or else … this is the wondrous rational response that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. This is an insistence for truth within a worldview where truth can be either entirely relative or illusory but never contradictory with the worldview proffered by the would be rationalists.

    Maybe creationism is mistaken about many scientific concerns, yet one can venture a guess that the prevailing worldviews are mistaken as well. Whether empiricists, reductionists, physicalists, naturalists, dualists, or whatever, mistakenness runs through the full gamut of human experiencing. The Salem hypothesis is yet another false thought-form that appears sometimes innocuous, sometimes humorous, sometimes antagonistic, but never grounded in truth, unless one’s truth is merely statistical and resultantly superficial.

    Experimental science, including the applied sciences, is at first ontologically unconscious in terms of culture, socio-political philosophy, racial complexity, religious beliefs, or worldview bias. And only secondarily during interpretation and intelligent filtering does experimental science become a diverse tool of rationality, too often divisive and falsely propositional. That the applied sciences called engineering prefers design over randomness, structure over changing mutations, precision over statistical uncertainty, does not devalue underlying scientific principles. Rather this opens up human experiencing to the numerous possibilities otherwise unavailable to the physicalistic rationalists’ mind-set.

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    redwave

    the applied sciences called engineering prefers design over randomness, structure over changing mutations, precision over statistical uncertainty

    The applied sciences attempt to apply the theoretical findings to real-world problems.
    Engineers just discovered that evolutionary theory is useless in application. The theorists think that the problem is with the engineers and not with the theory.

  45. 45
    PavelU says:

    This recent paper by prestigious scientists clearly explains how evolution happened:

    On the feasibility of saltational evolution

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    PavelU “This recent paper by prestigious scientists clearly explains how evolution happened:”

    No they didn’t, they used mathematical fantasy, unconnected to any real world demonstration, to try to find a way to meld Darwinian theory to Gould’s theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ (which was basically just Gould admitting that the fossil record is severely discordant to Darwinian predictions of gradualism).

    What they actually did, in trying to find a new mathematical model for ‘punctuated equilibrium’, is admit that nobody presently has a clue “how evolution happened” in the first place.

    If this were soccer PavelU, you would have just made an ‘own goal’.
    https://giphy.com/explore/own-goal

  47. 47
    jawa says:

    Agree with BA77. Well stated.

    Is PavelU ever going to realize that his hallucinations are always so far off target? Doesn’t he see that?

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    Serial, failed literature bluffs.

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    What they actually did, in trying to find a new mathematical model for ‘punctuated equilibrium’, is admit that nobody presently has a clue “how evolution happened” in the first place.

    That’s the way I saw it also. We’ve been told that all of this is settled-science.

    From the abstract:
    However, some of the most consequential evolutionary changes, such as, for example, the emergence of major taxa, seem to occur abruptly rather than gradually, prompting hypotheses on the importance of saltational evolution …

  50. 50
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Serial, failed literature bluffs.

    I assume that you are referring to BA77’s penchant for cut-and-paste. 🙂

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, I suggest you not troll me. It will not go well for you..

  52. 52
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Ed George, I suggest you not troll me. It will not go well for you.

    Please read in the voice of Yoda.

    Humour does not run strong in this family

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    I don’t find your original nor subsequent comment funny. What I do find funny is PavelU continually referencing papers that directly contradict his claims for them.

  54. 54
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    I don’t find your original nor subsequent comment funny.

    Then, with respect, you take yourself far too seriously. My comments were made with light hearted humour. If you take them otherwise then I apologize for your lack of humour.

  55. 55
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    What I do find funny is PavelU continually referencing papers that directly contradict his claims for them.

    Now, again with great respect, have you read the papers you reference?

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, here is an article that shows how consciousness and quantum mechanics are extremely tightly correlated. Please find one paper in the article that contradicts any specific claim that I made for its implications to my overall thesis:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – paper
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMjMgnmp6pEVQXZqKRXqpdrpRxpUt58p7HeeeLyNpt4/edit

  57. 57
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – what does a link between QM and consciousness have to do with the possibility of evolution through saltationism?

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you have shown one reason why there is a need for detailed citation and structured argument, precisely what you and your ilk like to trash and dismiss, mocking those who take time to present such. While I have points where I differ with BA77, he has said and shared much, across the years, that you and others would do well to heed. KF

  59. 59
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, precisely my point on serial, failed literature bluffs. KF

    PS: The late Philip Johnson’s rejoinder to Lewontin’s infamous cat out of the bag NYRB article is relevant:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

    [–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

    “Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.” [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]

    Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

    And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

    That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

  60. 60
    willspeaks says:

    Fascinating discussion on the day when we celebrate one of the most brilliant engineering feats ever,
    The virgin birth:)
    On a side note, as a carpenter, or as I like to say, “Alchemy with splinters”. Given the engineers that I have been “blessed” to be associated with, I’m thankful that they weren’t in charge of designing the universe.

  61. 61
    jstanley01 says:

    EVOLUTIONISTS: Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid, insane, evil, or some combination thereof.
    ALSO EVOLUTIONISTS: Anyone who isn’t a biologist is unqualified to understand evolution.

Leave a Reply