Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why isn’t ALL life extinct?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In another thread talking about engineers’ perspectives on the machinery of life the topic of entropy came up. Engineers have to deal with entropy in all their designs and the very best efforts at dealing with it only serve to slow it down and never stop it.

So one of my big questions isn’t why most cell lines sooner or later go extinct as that’s easily explained by entropy. Rather my big question is how a rare few of them have managed to persist for hundreds of millions or billions of years.

In computer design engineering we have to deal with users changing the software load in unpredictable ways. We ship the computer out with a software load we know works. It then “evolves” unpredictably as the computer is used and customized without or without the informed consent of the owner. Often that evolution of the software load results in a system that no longer functions. Without some recovery method that particular computer, which is analogous to a single cell line, would become extinct. The ways we address this problem are many, convoluted, and complex but I’d like to focus on a few in particular.

One method is called a “factory restore”. In this method a protected image of the known working software load from the factory is used to replace the evolved load. This is typically implemented by a user accessable trigger and an image stored on a protected segment of the hard disk or separately on a CD rom disk.

A somewhat less effective but largely successful method of recovery from disastrous software load “evolution” is employed by more recent versions of Microsoft Windows. It employs automatic trigger mechanisms that take a snapshot of the current state of the software such that if disaster happens the state can be restored to a previously known working state. This allows successful modifications wrought by evolution to “survive” without backtracking farther than absolutely required. It doesn’t always work because the images aren’t complete snapshots, which would quickly overflow the storage capacity of the disk, but rather carefully selected critical bits are saved that usually work to restore a known working state.

In other than inexpensive personal computers where cost isn’t so prohibitive (such as servers) both automatic and manually triggered backups of the software state are made to external, removeable media. In the most critical applications multiple backups are made and stored in physically separated locations such that a catastrophe, like a fire, in one location won’t destroy all the copies.

Now since in my experience many (if not most or all) designs we humans invent to solve engineering challenges end up having analogs found in the design of life I propose that a plausible answer to how life deals with the devastating effect of entropy is along the same lines used in computer systems. Periodic backups are made such that what random evolution hath wrought on the software load (DNA) can be undone back to a previously known working state. Evolution starts over but doesn’t start over from scratch. The details and triggers employed can only be imagined at this point in time but it doesn’t take much imagination for a computer design engineer. Experiments to tease out the methods and triggers, if they exist, seem like a reasonable line of inquiry.

It’s difficult to imagine how mutation and selection could invent a disaster recovery method such as this and that likely explains why there’s little if any research thrown at figuring out why most but not all cell lines eventually go extinct. This is where the ID paradigm becomes very valuable. Rather than limit the possibilities in the design of life to what is reasonable for a reactive process like mutation and selection to invent we extend our thinking to what is reasonable for a proactive process like intelligent design to invent.

Comments
I guess it just isn't rational to continue this discussion.magnan
February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
magnan, One could also say that human data gatherers (overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic scientists) probably have the whole picture wrong and misunderstand the processes that lead them to such ages. Materialistic agenda-driven science consistently gets the picture wrong in regards biological evolution, so would it really be a total shock if their uniformatarian/Darwinistic beliefs color their presentation and interpretation of the "facts" in other areas of science? I'm not arguing for YEC, I'm just saying it isn't like the consensus hasn't been completely wrong before. (See global cooling, phlogiston, eternal universe, and NDE to name a few) As for my main point, think of the individual. If they trust in a god (small g, it could be whatever they put their trust in) and that "god" has empirically shown itself unfailingly trustworthy, why should they put their trust instead in oft-mistaken and unreliable hypotheses of human data gatherers? I'd say it would be irrational to discount personal empirical experience in favor of popular consensus. In the YEC's case, they may be doing the most rational thing.Atom
February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Atom (#51): "Why does it have to be a strong emotional need to believe? Can’t a YEC just decide, in a perfectly rational way, that mainstream science is probably wrong and that he/she’d rather give the benefit of the doubt to someone/something they have never had fail them?" I would hold to my comments in #50. It is not rational to ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in this case. The main categories of evidence (just the tip of the iceberg) are: - Thousands of feet of sedimentary rock looking mostly to have been deposited slowly by presently observed geologic processes, and by those processes requiring hundreds of millions of years, cumulatively billions of years. - Radioactive isotope dating (using known decay rates) of lava layers, volcanic ash, etc., dating the immediately superposing and underlying sedimentary layers. - Such dating correlating with sedimentary deposition rates in many cases - Fossils found in corresponding sedimentary layers, indirectly dated via the radiometric means mentioned. - Plotting the forms and types of organisms indicated by the fossils versus their dating mostly obtained as above clearly showing a very general picture of progressive elaboration and diversification with time over hundreds of millions and even billions of years. It seems to me the only way this data can be logically reconciled with the YEC belief structure is to propose that the world as physically discovered in the summary above was recently created with all these built in correlating indicators of great age. It must have been to test men's faith in Scripture. It is true that there is no way to logically disprove such a conjecture, but is it reasonable from an objective (non faith-based) point of view? StephenB suggested that it is important to maintain the "big tent" philosophy for ID. As I mentioned, I think it is a mixed call, significant negatives and a few positives.magnan
February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
To YEC critics: WE SHOULD NOT ABANDON OUR BIG TENT PHILSOPHY. Just as ID deserves a place at the table of mainstream science, legitimate diverse opinions within the ID camp deserve to be heard. When the subject of intelligent design is examined from several distinct vantage points, intellectual laziness gives way to subtlety and sophistication. My own experience has been enriched because, through the years, others have tugged away at my own biases and prejudices. From the YEC’s I learned about “uniformitariasm,” an assumption about modern science that has never really been verified. From the agnostics, I have learned about the utopian dream of elevating artificial intelligence to the status of mind. Thanks to the anti-Darwinists, I can more fully appreciate the pretensions and excesses of the scientific establishment. Thanks to the Darwinist sympathizers, I now have a better understanding about RV+NS, its capacities and its limitations. While diversity of opinion provides intellectual stimulation, a corresponding unity and solidarity provides a vital sense of mission. We know that ID is an empirically-based science, and the world will soon know it---in spite of our adversary’s proclivity to publicize lies to the contrary. To me, it is foolish to throw YEC’s to the wolves on the grounds that keeping company with them will cause others to misunderstand us. Some of us have become downright paranoid about this. We can’t afford to allow an activist Pennsylvania Judge or some whacked out professor in Louisiana to inhibit us from developing naturally as legitimate cultural phenomenon, even if part of that development includes intermittent discussions about religion. We have our own built in mechanism to limit inappropriate references and verbal eruptions of piety. Anyway, I agree with Atom, who has pointed out that our adversaries do not need an excuse to militate against us. Any pretext will do. I like surprises, and this blog offers a lot of them. Some of the administrators are awesome with respect to their knowledge of science. Others are better at framing ID’s social implications and introducing themes about the relationship between philosophy and science. A few are quite good at reporting on the ramblings from the other side. Somehow, we have found a way to navigate through a dozen or more threads simultaneously without losing much continuity. As a wise man once said, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.StephenB
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Atom, I am sure that anyone who thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago would have to believe everything was created de novo so concepts that discuss progress or lack of progress over time are meaningless in such a short time scenario. To even present ideas that rely on process or deep time in this scenario has no meaning. Why would anyone bother paying attention to it. Thus, the only framework that makes sense discussing these ideas is one in which deep time is considered the likely scenario. ID is used to refute things that might have happened in deep time but really couldn't. Thus, ID needs deep time to have any relevance. If you said well IC couldn't have happened in 6 days except by an intelligent intervention no one would pay any attention to you. You are stating the obvious. Because no one believes that natural process work in that short of time. They only work in deep time. But to prove it couldn't happen in 4 billion years, that is a conclusion that makes one sit up and take notice. Neither if you said well if it could not have happened in 4 billion years so that makes the 6,000 year old earth more likely. No one would pay any attention to you either. It would be a non sequitur unless there were a multitude of processes that ID ruled out that happened in deep time and not just this one. There are thousands of other processes that are best explained by 4 billion years with which ID has no quarrel and says could be best explained by natural means. In fact ID would point to a non intelligent source for these processes due to laws and chance. No the only purpose of ID is ruling out things that could not have happened in deep time by natural mechanisms and has no relevance to short time scenarios. If you want to bring up things like forensics or arrow heads, go right ahead but the only thing of real interest to ID is how life progressed over billions of years.jerry
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
ID as it is practiced now it predicated on an old universe and old earth.
I'm sure many ID adherents would disagree with that statement, for the reasons I mentioned above. If blind-processes can't produce the results in 15 billion years they sure can't in 10,000 years. ID concepts such as IC and CSI are just fine in either Old Earth or Young Earth settings.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
bFast, I only bring up the general YEC case because that is what others are doing. I agree, if Sanford has a scientific YEC case from his data, more power to him. jerry, Dembski's UPB does give enough opportunities as could have occurred in an old earth...but it does not require one. If the earth were young, then the UPB would still be a UPB; the true bound, however, would be orders of magnitude lower. If Darwinists can't do it with 10^150 tries then they sure can't do it with 10^50 tries. Either way, 10^150 would still be an upper bound, just one that is far too generous.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
"Neither IC nor SC make any comment about the age of the earth." Both IC, SC as well as Behe's Edge of Evolution only make sense in terms of an old universe and an earth of billions of years. Both Dembski and Behe's ideas depend upon massive number of opportunities happening and failing. Dembski's UPB is based on an old universe. Behe's edge of evolution is based on zillions of reproductive events with no joy. Granted he was using recent single celled reproduction rates but the weight of the argument would have been vacuous unless it could be extended to multi-celled organisms and their evolutionary path of millions of years or greater. ID as it is practiced now it predicated on an old universe and old earth. To deny either then you make Dembski's and Behe's research meaningless. As far as extinction is concerned, are we really seeing any species go extinct because they are the result of deleterious mutations or the accumulation of them. I doubt it. We have a world full of species and if any of them are going extinct it is mainly due to human intervention reducing the gene pool of the populations and not from the species getting sick and passing on. In fact that is ludicrous. I am sure there are many examples that do not involve human intervention but I doubt if any is due to deterioration of the genomes. I also doubt the large numbers of species going extinct as quoted in a lot of popular sources. This is good political fodder that plays well with the squeamish and guilt ridden. I haven't read Sanford's book but if the ideas put forth in it say that species are accumulating bad mutations at alarming rates then we would be witnessing a never ending report from the scientific community of the effects on species. Since we do not see these expected effect, you would have to conclude that Sanford's ideas are suspect. Wouldn't the species that reproduced faster be more suspect to dying off than those who reproduced slower. It seems to me that the insects are doing just fine in my neighborhood. And as far as humans are concerned and those of you who believe in a young earth, are we now such a decrepit species physically and mentally from all these mutations or are we doing just fine compared to our ancient ancestors. I am not sure we have any Plato's and Aristotle's today but we have some really bright people in our midst. I think the answers to all these questions are obvious and I wonder what absurd science suggested these concepts. I will make a couple of conjectures about extinction. It is best explained by natural selection as it continually culls the gene pool of a population to less variety and eventually a species meets an environment it can't handle. So it is the narrowing of the gene pool that is the culprit and not any accumulation of harmful mutations. Dave may be right that there is some built in mechanism yet to be found that will explain a defense against mutations accumulating and we will probably see when we examine genomes from millions of humans that there are not accumulating these supposed harmful mutations.jerry
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
I do not get this dialog at all! These scientists, Stanford and PB in particular, are simply stating that THE EVIDENCE FROM THEIR SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE does not fit with an old biology. They then go on to suggest an outside edge for the age of biology at 100,000 and 1,000,000 years. These number are not numbers that they are getting from some religious text! Why do we need to whipe them out as religious cooks, despite their solid scientific credentials? I have worked throught the case of young v. old earth. I come down with the majority on this one -- the case for an old earth is strong. Yet these scientists suggest that genetic entropy is great enough that biology would have fried in 4 billion years. What's the schtick here. Show them that they are wrong -- with Stanford that's easy, he has a book that clearly deliniates his position. Show that biology can withstand 4 billion years of entropy, or honestly declare that these scientists are bringing up a serious canundrum. Is biology 4 billion years old because the intelligent designer(s) have refreshed it over the eons? Maybe there is evidence of this. If so, then the earth really has old biology, and has a repeated force in opposition to entropy (intelligent agency) acting to maintain the quality of the DNA. There is no reason to slay our top scientists (Sanford certainly qualifies) because their data does not fit the current paradyme.bFast
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Addendum: You wrote:
Unfortunately, it would seem that YEC scientists are committed ideologues as much as fanatic atheistic Darwinists, and will determinedly interpret or ignore evidence in such a way as to fit their preconceptions. We all have these tendencies, but hopefully try to maintain at least some form of objectivity and open mindedness to contrary evidence.
I think it is important to highlight this. If one is to hold a position contrary to scientific evidence then they should not hide or distort that evidence in any way. They should openly admit that there is evidence against their belief (as Woodmorappe does when he discusses Chimp/Human similarities) and maybe even attempt to solve those issues. But even if they cannot solve them, they can simply admit that the scientific, human data gathered argues against their theory, but their personally more reliable source of information confirms it. And they are free, and rational, to go with the evidence provided by the most trustworthy source, as demonstrated to them personally.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Magnan, Why does it have to be a strong emotional need to believe? Can't a YEC just decide, in a perfectly rational way, that mainstream science is probably wrong and that he/she'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to someone/something they have never had fail them? I keep the story from Spetner's "Not By Chance" in my head every time I hear someone disparage YECs as nuts: There was a time (as I mentioned before) when all science showed conclusively that the universe had no beginning. But this flatly contradicted Torah and so a group of rabbis met to resolve the matter. They eventually decided that the science must be wrong, since it was clear that there was a beginning of the Universe, according to Torah. The science came to the wrong conclusion, so was to be rejected. Spetner points out two things. First, they could have caved to pressure and re-interpreted Torah. But if they had done so, they would have had to admit they were wrong twice, as their original position was eventually vindicated. Now I don't see how this faith in an ancient religious text (that has withstood over 2000 years of scrutiny and had many, many archeological details confirmed, again and again) or G-d is any less rational than faith in a group of human data collectors and their deductive/inductive reasoning. If I find that a text and a god are very reliable in daily life and that human data gatherers are much less reliable, isn't it more reasonable to give the text/god combination the benefit of the doubt when there is a conflict? I think it would be irrational to do otherwise. Hence why I respect the YEC position, even if I see it as a religious and not scientific-evidence based hypothesis.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Atom: "YEC includes very bright minds and very knowledable scientists who’d probably love to debate you on the age of the earth/universe. So let’s just say there is more than one opinion on those matters within the ID camp, as it includes both ID evolutionists and ID creationists." This does seem to be the case, and it continues to be a source of puzzlement to me. Some very smart people (in particular scientists) can ignore mountains of evidence for the ancient age of the earth in favor of Scripture. The explanation has to be in the psychology of religious belief (realizing that "religious" belief also applies to Darwinism). By far the most reasonable interpretation of the geologic, radioisotope dating and fossil evidence is for an earth age of billions of years. Scripture as literally interpreted describes creation as occurring in near historic times. If there is fervent belief (or emotional need to believe) in a literal interpretation of the Bible, a major cognitive dissonance is created. This is stressful and painful, generating a strong desire to resolve the inner intellectual conflict. The result is to preserve the emotionally most important belief (fundamentalist Christian) and very cleverly find some other interpretation however strained for the scientific evidence. Unfortunately, it would seem that YEC scientists are committed ideologues as much as fanatic atheistic Darwinists, and will determinedly interpret or ignore evidence in such a way as to fit their preconceptions. We all have these tendencies, but hopefully try to maintain at least some form of objectivity and open mindedness to contrary evidence. It is clear that YEC to some extent discredits ID in the media and in the scientific arena. I wonder whether this matters, however, since any flavor of ID regardless of who espouses it would invite the same scorn and ridicule even without YEC advocacy. There actually may be some benefit because some of the YEC thought has generated strong legitimate scientific arguments for ID (such as Ray Sanford, assuming he is actually a YEC advocate).magnan
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
bFast I expect Sanford will quantify genetic entropy based on the evidence available. That should stand on its own based on measured statistics of mutations etc. Some could then take the results and interpret them as to relating to the age of biotic systems. The idea of metatheory vs specific theories is worth exploring. In some ways that parallels "evolution" as a parallel meta theory. Jack Krebs I do not see how the specificity of IC needs to depend or tie into the age of the earth. It appears valid which ever age.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
But eventually the ideas of IC, SC, etc, need to gain specificity that they don't have now, and when they do they will need to address issues of not only how but when and where - and those questions will have to address the age of the earth and the time sequences for both the geological history of the earth and the biological history of life on earth.Jack Krebs
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs:
I can see, perhaps, how an objective ID theory might eventually span theists, agnostics, atheists and people of other philosophical persuasions, but I can’t see how any objective ID theory could encompass both a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 6,000 year old earth.
I personally don't see ID as a theory, I see it as a metatheory, a framework. Within this ID framework are a bunch of theories: IC, SC, etc. (Each of these theories is a falsifiable entity.) As such, the ID framework can quite easily encompass both a 4.5 billion and 6,000 year old earth. The specific theories within the framework may or may not suggest an age. Sanford's theory of the entropic effects on DNA fit far more comfortably within a young earth than within an old. Neither IC nor SC make any comment about the age of the earth.bFast
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs at 41 I think that an ID theory for biotic systems could easily span this range. Similarly, if we look at the anthropological principle and focused on the parameters describing the fine tuning of the universe, I could also see that spanning that range. Its the interpretation of geological features and the "age" of the earth and universe that appears to be particularly where the divergences appear to lie.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Mapou Encourage you to explore the data on biotic systems themselves, (whatever the age of the earth or the universe, or a person's beliefs thereto.) Have a good sabbatical.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Not to mention, there was a time when all the best science, scientists, thinkers, facts and evidence showed conclusively that the universe had no beginning. Let's not put on our dogmatic hats just yet. Follwo the evidence where it leads but always be open to new evidence that may lead you away from where you currently stand. YEC includes very bright minds and very knowledable scientists who'd probably love to debate you on the age of the earth/universe. So let's just say there is more than one opinion on those matters within the ID camp, as it includes both ID evolutionists and ID creationists. If Gonzalez is free to develop an Old Earth ID PP hypothesis, Sanford should also be allowed to develop a Young Earth Genetic Entropy hypothesis.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Mapau:
I respect YECs but I consider the young earth hypothesis to be no more valid than the flat earth hypothesis. It’s a ridiculous belief, in my opinion.
From #32:
The Wikipedia article says that Sanford believes that the age of the earth was between 100,000 and 10,000 years
Sanford seems to be saying that his science, biology, would be extremely challenged by an age greater than 100,000 years. This is somehow fundimentally different than the theologian that delclares that the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old -- God said it, I believe it, That settles it. Sanford is not the only biologist who is suggesting that his scientific understanding challenges a 4 billion year old biology. Peter Borger has said the same thing on ISCID's brainstorms. I think PB's view is that anything beyond 1 million years is highly unlikely. If scientists are seeing this quandary, I don't think their view should be rejected out of hand. I fully agree that anyone who places Biblical authority above scientific discovery is making a huge mistake. However, these guys are coming to this conclusion from studying their discipline. I respect their consern and believe that their issues, entropy, need to be reconed with.bFast
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
My Bible does not instruct me to park my brain in a closet when I read it, sorry. It plainly says, “seek and you will find”.
Why should I trust a Bible that says "Seek and you will find" if it also says that G-d formed Adam from the dust of the earth, that Adam gave birth to Seth, who gave birth to...etc, that birds were created before reptiles, etc? Are only some portions trustworthy? It goes both ways. YECs would criticize you for not taking the Bible seriously and making it look like "foolishness".
So I guess my point is this. YECs are not doing either Christianity or ID a service in my opinion. They make Christians look stupid in the eyes of the enemy and the world at large.
The mind of the flesh cannot understand spiritual things; they are foolishness to it. So guess again if you think "Christianity" will ever appear "smart" to anyone other than Christians.Atom
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
I can see, perhaps, how an objective ID theory might eventually span theists, agnostics, atheists and people of other philosophical persuasions, but I can't see how any objective ID theory could encompass both a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 6,000 year old earth. There are too many details about when and in what order things happened for these two to be reconciled.Jack Krebs
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
DLH: Please contribute constructively and don’t waste our time. All right. I will not waste your time anymore. Neither will I let you waste mine. I will come back and offer my support for ID when the ID movement can gather enough gonads to denounce the crackpottery of the YECs and distance itself from them. Good luck to you all.Mapou
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Mapou What we want to focus on here is a theory of Intelligent Design that 1) can detect evidence of such intelligent design 2) is a better description of biotic systems, and 3) is a better predictor of biotic systems. (- whatever a person's beliefs or interpretations of the data on how old the earth is, or how old life has been around.) Please do NOT denigrate others for their beliefs. We want to uphold the unalienable freedom of speech and conscience. (Otherwise there are plenty of opportunities behind the great firewall where you may find comrades.) If you hold to life being 1 billion years old, all the more important to focus on the topic of this thread. Why isn’t ALL life extinct? Why are you able to talk about it? Please contribute constructively and don't waste our time. Address the topic, the data and the hypotheses in DLH 33, and DaveScott's comments above. PS Do to others what you would want them to do to you! Please review ID Assumptions - "Beliefs
Scientists and engineers working with intelligent causes have various worldviews and religious beliefs. The only assumption on their beliefs are the assumptions 1 through 8 above in examining intelligent causes.
I want to see an objective ID theory that could be supported across the full range of YEC. OEC, agnostics - and even atheists. You are free to express your beliefs in your own public web page etc. Lets here focus on the task at hand.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
bililiad: Of course DLH is right. Whether someone believes the Earth is 6,000 or 60 billion years old is irrelevant to the question of how seriously they should be taken. I'm sorry but I have to disagree that it is irrelevant. I am an unapologetic Christian and I respect YECs but I consider the young earth hypothesis to be no more valid than the flat earth hypothesis. It's a ridiculous belief, in my opinion. I don't take a lot of physicists seriously precisely because they believe in the possibility of time travel which I consider to be pure crackpottery. Likewise, my respect for a creationist scientist immediately takes a dive when I find out that he or she believes in a young earth. I am 100% pro-ID and pro-science as long as we go about it with an open mind and are willing to go where the evidence leads us, not where we think the evidence should lead us. And the evidence clearly says that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. My Bible does not instruct me to park my brain in a closet when I read it, sorry. It plainly says, "seek and you will find". So I guess my point is this. YECs are not doing either Christianity or ID a service in my opinion. They make Christians look stupid in the eyes of the enemy and the world at large. Sorry to be so brunt but I always tell it like I see it.Mapou
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
The transcripts of the science hearings were definitely not falsified - the transcripts were created by a court reporter hired by the state Board of Education, which sponsored the hearings. And, for what it's worth, I was there and heard the entire conversation.Jack Krebs
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
For the record, at the Kansas science hearings in 2005, Sanford said that he believed the earth was between 5 and 100,000 years old. As to his position at Cornell, he said this:
when the GeneGun technology was developed, I was able-- I was very blessed and able to take a lot of revenue from that. It was a very financially-rewarding invention which eventually let me leave Cornell. So right now I'm a courtesy professor at Cornell with an office there, but I'm not on a paid-- a paid faculty. And I'm presently in the process of writing books.
Jack Krebs
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Mapou That is irrelevant here - go read his book - and help improve Wikipedia and ResearchID. Focus on the topic at hand of why life still exists and what design principles and theory we can develop from it.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
DaveScott Back to "Why Isn't All Life Extinct?" Following along the lines you have been describing, I have been thinking on how to formally develop this. e.g., with the following methodology: Design Detectability: Design by Intelligent agents may be detectable by other intelligent agents. Discoverable design principles: The design principles used by some intelligent agents may be recognizable and discoverable through reverse engineering by other intelligent agents. Extrapolating Design Principles: Design principles used by some intelligent agents may be similar to those used by other intelligent agents. Thus: Identify Human Design Principles Identify all the design principles used by human engineers to preserve designs. Extrapolate to biotic design principles If biotic systems are designed, then some or all of these human design preservation methods may have been used by an intelligent designer to design biotic systems. Then formulate these design principles to systematically Describe biotic systems, and to: Predict biotic features and processes. By reverse engineering, this leads to a high level ID design principle of: Preserve the Design. Thus I propose that it would be fruitful to: 1) Assemble and classify those design principles relating to preserving the design. 2) Compare these preservation principles to biotic systems. 3) Use those preservation principles to predict further features of biotic systems. E.g. Robust design. Information coding. Coding efficiency. Coding redundancy. Coding recovery. (Solomon Codes etc.) Error detection. Error correction. Redundant systems. Multiple copies. Parallel operations. Storing default configurations. Restoring default configurations Testing for process completion. Restarting on process failure. etc. We should probably develop these and then start another thread addressing them. (This is a small part of what I want to write this up as part of a larger ID theory. However, you appear to have more expertise along these lines, and possible more time to do so.)DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
DLH, thanks for the links. Wow. The Wikipedia article says that Sanford believes that the age of the earth was between 100,000 and 10,000 years. Is it true that Sanford is a young earth creationist or is that a propaganda smear, courtesy of the "unbiased" Wikipedia editors?Mapou
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Sanford is still officially a "Courtesy Associate Professor". Wikipedia's "editors" try to dismiss Sanford and he comments on the ostracization in his book.DLH
February 26, 2008
February
02
Feb
26
26
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply