Intelligent Design

WS Wants to Know Why He is Cynical and Uncharitable:  A Tutorial

Spread the love

Update: It occurred to me that people might think this post is intended merely to pick on WS. Not so. The purpose of the post is to demonstrate the principle of charity in philosophy, science and in other areas where ideas compete. WS is a stand-in for every materialist objector to ID who assumes before the argument begins that ID proponents are all liars and therefore refuse to address their arguments at face value.

william spearshake:

Given that ID didn’t surface until Creationism was ruled a religion, and since it encompasses everything from 6000 year earth creationists, to evolutionary theists, and since most authors and most supportive commenters are theists (ie, Christian) I stand my my previous claim.  [i.e., that ID is religiously based]

Barry responds:

The essence of your belief is a cynical and uncharitable refusal to take people at their word. OK, you are entitled to be cynical and uncharitable. No law against that.

WS asks:

So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable”?

OK WS. I will. First let’s define the terms. Here is Wikipedia’s discussion of the “Principle of Charity”:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker’s statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.  In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

In a nutshell, the principle of charity requires that when you are considering another person’s argument you try your best to accept and analyze his arguments on their own terms and at face value.  It is uncharitable to assume he is lying or trying to mislead from his true objective or has ulterior motives.

My dictionary defines “cynical” as “distrusting or disparaging the motives of others.”

How do these terms apply to you?  ID proponents argue there are indicia of design that can sometimes be objectively detected.  These indicia include (1) high levels of specified complexity, (2) the existence of a semiotic code (a special case of (1)); and (3) the existence of irreducibly complex structures that could not possible have been assembled by blind natural forces in a step by step process with no ultimate goal in mind.

Here is where the rubber hits the road.  Many ID proponents believe that God is the best candidate for the designer (Indeed, he may be the only candidate when we are talking about design a the cosmological level, but I am limiting this discussion to biological ID).  Nevertheless, those ID proponents assert a distinction between what they believe on the basis of faith (God did it) and what they can demonstrate objectively (some intelligent designer, not necessarily God, did it).  In other words, they say that the design inference warranted by the indicia of design points only to a designer, not to a particular designer.

Now the essence of your claim is that ID proponents are inveterate liars.  You refuse to take at face value their claim that they are searching for objective indicia of design. You refuse to countenance their claim that the inference to design can be separated from personal beliefs about who the designer is.  You claim ID proponents are dishonestly trying to push their God beliefs with the ulterior motive of advancing a religious agenda in the guise of pursuing objective science.

So let’s count up the indicia of uncharitable:
Refuse to accept and analyze his arguments on their own terms and at face value:  Check.
Assume he is lying:  Check
Assume he is trying to mislead from his true objective:  Check
Assume he has ulterior motives:  Check

What about cynical?
Distrusting or disparaging the motives of others:  Check

There you have it WS.  If the shoe fits . . .

124 Replies to “WS Wants to Know Why He is Cynical and Uncharitable:  A Tutorial

  1. 1
    william spearshake says:

    Barry, once again, you take comments out of context. Let me put them back in context.

    Barry @11: “Now I understand the basis of your belief that ID is religiously based. The essence of your belief is a cynical and uncharitable refusal to take people at their word. OK, you are entitled to be cynical and uncharitable. No law against that.”

    Followed almost immediately by:

    Barry: “Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us.” (your bolder text, not mine).
    I guess there is a law against it. It has been nice knowing you G2.

    So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable “?”

    You neglected to mention that my last comment was made after you banned someone from UD for blasphemy. It seems to me that this might be an important point in understanding my last comment

    As a lawyer I would think that you would understand the importance of context in what a person says.

  2. 2
    Upright BiPed says:

    explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable

    ID is design detection.

    Can you explain the religious doctrine in the observation of semiosis or irreducible complexity?

    If you are unable to demonstrate the religious doctrine involved in the observations of semiosis and/or irreducible complexity, but see those observations as being separate from religious doctrine, then why don’t you just say so? It would simply seem to be a more defensible position in the absence of being able to articulate the religious doctrine involved in those observations.

    Why would you resist adopting a more defensible position?

  3. 3
    AVS says:

    If I may be so bold as to speak for WS, maybe he thinks that ID relies on the assumption that there is a designer (a god in just about all cases), which by default makes it a religious doctrine.

  4. 4
    william spearshake says:

    AVS, exactly. Until they can propose the nature of a designer who isn’t a god, what else can I think?

  5. 5
    AVS says:

    Aliens. Duh.

  6. 6
    Upright BiPed says:

    Bogart,

    Earlier this year you stated:

    Scientists clearly admit that they don’t know how life originated, and will never know (unless they invent time travel). But they will narrow it down to a small number if good contenders. And intelligent design won’t be amongst them because that still leaves the question of how the intelligent designer originated. By definition, an intelligent designer must be alive. You can call it a spirit, a god, the Holy Ghost, whatever. It thinks, it plans, it is alive.

    To which I replied:

    Design theory cannot identify the designer because a means to do so is not in the material evidence. Mankind’s inability to name the intelligence does not suddenly increase the capacity of inanimate to organize itself into a semiotic translation apparatus and fill a medium with functional form when translated. Yet, the living cell cannot be organized otherwise.

    Design theory posits the only verifiable source for a semiotic system based on a finite set iterative representations arranged in a linear dimensional code. It can be falsified by a single example of such a system rising without intelligent guidance.

    On the other hand, a theory that is ultimately defended by “We don’t know how it happened yet, but we know it wasn’t guided and we’ll prove it someday” is a theory that can never be falsified, and therefore must be taken on faith alone.

    Since you now say that ID assumes a designer and this makes it a religious doctrine, than my question to you persist:

    Can you explain the religious doctrine assumption of a designer in the observation of semiosis or irreducible complexity?

    Please point out the details.

  7. 7
    Upright BiPed says:

    AVS,

    There is little doubt that Bogart thinks there is an assumption of a designer in ID methodologies, that is why I asked him to demonstrate them. I have now asked the same question 4 times.

    I think Bogart perhaps understands that he cannot make that case without making my case in its place, and thus, he refrains from trying.

    You, on the other hand, are often less clever. Showing up to say “there’s an assumption of a designer” is rather comical in context. But now that you’re all caught up, you are welcome to make the case that there is an assumption of a designer in the observation of semiosis and/or irreducible complexity.

    Be specific with regard to the details.

  8. 8
    AVS says:

    I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.

  9. 9
    anthropic says:

    WS 4

    “AVS, exactly. Until they can propose the nature of a designer who isn’t a god, what else can I think?”

    So let me get this straight, WS. Design is an impermissible inference because the designer might be a god or God? :/

    As a matter of pure logic, that’s absurd. And in fact some ID proponents aren’t theists. For them, it may be that the universe itself tends towards order and complexity because that is the nature of the universe.

  10. 10
    Upright BiPed says:

    I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.

    What do you base this comment on?

  11. 11
    AVS says:

    A very basic understanding of exactly what semiosis and irreducible complexity is. Feel free to prove me wrong. Keep things brief though, I’ve always been under the impression that someone who really knows what they are talking about can keep their explanations concise.

  12. 12
    Upright BiPed says:

    Did this “basic understanding” come to you in an unexpected epiphany of some sort, or is there a reason, a basis, for you understand it in this way?

    Anything?

  13. 13
    Barry Arrington says:

    WS I notice you asked for an explanation for why you are cynical and uncharitable and when I provide it you completely ignore it. Telling. Review the checks at the end of the OP. Which would you uncheck? If the answer is none then just accept that you are cynical and uncharitable. If you would uncheck one the ball is in your court. Tell us why it was not fair to check it.

  14. 14
    AVS says:

    I looked up the wiki definition of semiosis which is “is any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning.” And I’ve talked about IC enough with you guys in the past I would say.

  15. 15
    william spearshake says:

    Anthropic: “So let me get this straight, WS. Design is an impermissible inference because the designer might be a god or God? :/”

    No. It is an impermissible inference if you declare that the designer (god) is beyond our understanding. The concept that god is beyond our understanding is dogma, not reason. If god is the designer (or Santa, or the tooth fairy, or the Lucky Charms Leprechaun), what is the rational reason why it must remain beyond our understanding? At one time, the production of fire was beyond our understanding, as was metallurgy, nuclear physics, the silicon chip and the opposite sex. OK, the opposite sex may forevever remain outside our understanding, but why should this be true of the designer (god)

    I certainly hope that I haven’t been blasphemous to the point of being banned from this non religious web site.

  16. 16
    anthropic says:

    AVS 11, UB 10

    “I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.”

    I’m scratching my head here. AVS, if I understand you correctly, you are saying exactly the same thing ID proponents say. They think that semiosis and irreducible complexity are real and hence require a designer.

    UB, as an ID proponent yourself, what did AVS say that you disagree with?

  17. 17
    AVS says:

    UB knows that I disagree with the existence of IC.

  18. 18
    Upright BiPed says:

    I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.

    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    I looked up the wiki definition of semiosis which is “is any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning.” And I’ve talked about IC enough with you guys in the past I would say.

    So please explain how the act of documenting a process that involves semiosis and/or irreducible complexity amounts to an assumption of a designer.

  19. 19
    Upright BiPed says:

    AVS,

    It is not that you disagree with IC, it’s that you cannot make your case, and I can.

  20. 20
    anthropic says:

    WS 15

    “It is an impermissible inference if you declare that the designer (god) is beyond our understanding. The concept that god is beyond our understanding is dogma, not reason. If god is the designer (or Santa, or the tooth fairy, or the Lucky Charms Leprechaun), what is the rational reason why it must remain beyond our understanding?”

    Actually, Christianity is unique in thinking that a rational, law-giving God created a rational, law-following universe that rational beings created in God’s image can understand. That’s why science was invented in Christian Europe and nowhere else.

    As an early scientist put it, his work was “Thinking the thoughts of God after Him.”

    By way of contrast, people who believe in the multiverse have absolutely no basis for expecting this universe is fundamentally rational. Or that they even really exist as anything other than disembodied Boltzmann’s Brains.

  21. 21
    william spearshake says:

    Barry, I looked at your checks at the end of your OP. With respect to the ones for “charitable” I can honestly say that you have more checks in these categories than I do.

    But I plead guilty to part of the cynical definition:
    Distrusting or disparaging the motives of others”
    The fact that you have presented my comments here, and in other posts, out of context, or strategically omitting some of the text, to support your views, I can only be honest and say that I distrust your motives.

    Or do you deny that you banned someone for blasphemy, which you conveniently neglected to mention was the impetus for my last comment in this OP?

  22. 22
    AVS says:

    IC itself is the documenting of a process that you think cannot be reduced any further, that it had to have been designed exactly how it is now, and is nonfunctional if missing any pieces.
    I’m really not sure what the whole semiosis thing is about except for the fact that you love to bring up the origin of translation, which ties into the symbol(nucleotide sequence)/meaning(amino acid sequence). I’m assuming it has to do with this, if this isn’t just another IC argument itself. Which, if I’m connecting the dots correctly, according to you guys requires a designer to create the correlation between codon and amino acid.

    The existence of both, in the end, according to you guys require a designer and I disagree.

  23. 23
    AVS says:

    UB, the only case for IC is that “we don’t know how it came about, therefore it irreducibly complex.”

  24. 24
    william spearshake says:

    Anthropic: “That’s why science was invented in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”

    That may come as a surprise to the Greeks, the Arabs (who kept inquiry alive while the Europeans were squabbling over Popes) and the Chinese. They may not have followed the modern scientific process, but it worked pretty well for them.

  25. 25
    Mapou says:

    bogart:

    Given that ID didn’t surface until Creationism was ruled a religion

    First off, this is not true. Detectives, archaeologists and other investigators have used ID to solve crimes for millenia. Second, if creationism is religion, anti-creationism is just as much a religion. Why? Because opposites are of the same nature. The worst thing about atheism is how it managed to fool the public into believing that it is some sort of non-religious and objective platform and thus force us to give them free tax money. Yet, as I’ve said elsewhere, the dirt worshippers are the most superstitious voodooists of them all. The state religion is voodoo BS and that is unconstitutional. The money spigot should be immediately turned off. Atheists and materialists should raise their own money for their religion, just like everybody else. This is thievery plain and simple.

  26. 26
    AVS says:

    WS, they are most likely talking about experimental science specifically, although they may not even realize it, which was born in Europe.

  27. 27
    Barry Arrington says:

    william spearshake,

    You act as if the context of your statement has a bearing on whether you are uncharitable or cynical. It does not. As expected, you are lying, obfuscating, deflecting and evading. You have no integrity whatsoever, and that is why I banned you the first time. Now that I know you are highly credentialed I am conflicted about banning you again. Yes, you come in as a guest on these pages and act the complete ass. On the other hand, maybe it is actually helpful to allow the world to watch the other side’s best and brightest act like a sophomoric dullard. Right now I’m leaning toward the latter view, but don’t test my limits.

  28. 28
    Barry Arrington says:

    AWS:

    Barry, I looked at your checks at the end of your OP. With respect to the ones for “charitable” I can honestly say that you have more checks in these categories than I do.

    If you are being honest, then tell us which ones and why?

  29. 29
    Upright BiPed says:

    UB, the only case for IC is that “we don’t know how it came about, therefore it irreducibly complex.”

    This does not make your case. Nor does it even begin to refute mine.

  30. 30
    AVS says:

    I’m not making a case or refuting a case. I am, however, still waiting for you to correct me on my explanation of “the assumption of a designer in the observation of semiosis or irreducible complexity”

  31. 31
    william spearshake says:

    Barry: “You act as if the context of your statement has a bearing on whether you are uncharitable or cynical.”

    Are you saying that context doesn’t matter? I hope that you are not being serious.

    OK, let’s use an example. You included the following statement that I made, but out of context.

    So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable”?

    On its own, as you presented it, it sounds uncharitable and cynical. I don’t disagree. But I think that the fact that you neglected to mention the statement that I made just before this one (that you had just banned a commenter for blasphemy), which is verifiable, removes the uncharitable adjective. Still cynical? You haven’t given me any reason why not to be.

    But, of course, you are well within your rights if you choose to ban me rather than address this.

  32. 32
    Upright BiPed says:

    The process of documenting a semiotic system does not assume a designer. Having documented such a system, we can then look for potential causes. If we find that all instances of such systems where we can determine the provenance of the system are – without exception – the result of a designing agent, then we have arrived at a inference based on universal experience (i.e.unrefuted evidence), not an assumption. And the more we can develop that physical evidence the stronger the inference becomes, even as it remains falsifiable by a single example to the contrary.

    Consider yourself refuted.

    Now, there are people who believe the biosphere was designed. In what specific ways does their belief alter the universal observation that all semiotic systems (like the one in question) result from design? Moreover, if this person is documenting for you the evidence of the semiotic system, is the intellectually effective response to attack them for their beliefs (which do not alter the observations) or attack the observations and demonstrate them incorrect? Which of these two options would you consider political or social, and which would you consider empirical?

  33. 33
    Barry Arrington says:

    WS:

    But I think that the fact that you neglected to mention the statement that I made just before this one (that you had just banned a commenter for blasphemy), which is verifiable, removes the uncharitable adjective. Still cynical? You haven’t given me any reason why not to be.

    Here are the criteria for “uncharitable”:
    Refuse to accept and analyze his arguments on their own terms and at face value
    Assume he is lying
    Assume he is trying to mislead from his true objective
    Assume he has ulterior motives

    Here is the criterion for “cynical”:
    Distrusting or disparaging the motives of others

    None of the criteria turn on “the statement I made before this one.” They turn on whether you refuse to accept and analyze his arguments on their own terms and at face value, etc.

    BTW, everyone is watching you dodge, bob, weave, deflect and distract rather than tell us which of these criteria do not apply to you and why.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS & WS: Do you accept the difference between drawing an inductive conclusion based on a body of observations and inference to best causal explanation and projecting an unwarranted assumption? If so, kindly explain how inferring design as best causal explanation on demonstrated reliable sign — recall, the fiasco objectors just had over BA’s Hamlet quote vs random text — is not a case of inductive, empirically grounded reasoning. If not, kindly explain why you hold that induction is tantamount to question-begging (at least, whenever it is convenient to project such). KF

    PS: It is beginning to look a lot like what is really going on is the notion that a designer of the cosmos is not possible and a designer of life on earth is effectively impossible as well. On that premise, no amount of evidence pointing inductively to design will ever be enough. But, at the cost of injecting a priori evolutionary materialism as a question-begging censor on scientific thought regarding origins. In which case Philip Johnson’s point in reply to Lewontin looks very much to be in the money:

    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. 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.]

    PPS: I won’t say much about the pretty direct motive mongering insinuations in the previous thread and above, given the direct context that I am the author of the relevant thread. Other, than to note that such are cause on the face of it to hold the likes of WS/A_b beyond the pale of common courtesy and decency. I suspect, they do not understand the magnitude of the offence involved in making such bigoted assumptions and gratuitous accusations, much as the boor who for no good reason refuses to shake a pro-offered hand . . . not aware that such is not just bad manners but a declaration of a state of war. Sadly, we are back to the broughtupcy issue. (And if you feel insulted by that WS, understand the response of someone who having been raised in a tradition of honour starting with what is written into his name has routinely laid career and life on the line over matters of truth and right, only to be cavalierly and falsely and on no good basis accused by direct implication of being a habitual liar. Be deeply ashamed, or if you are not, think twice about the state of conscience.)

  35. 35
    StephenB says:

    AVS

    I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.

    You began by saying that ID “assumes” a designer, but now you have injected in its place the word “requires,” which doesn’t even come close to meaning the same thing.

    As it is, your phrase “meaning/create a structure-function relationship” is complete gibberish. Please rewrite your idea in comprehensible prose.

    Better yet, say something rational. Explain ID’s inferential process from beginning to end and tell me exactly at which point the religious element is introduced and what form it takes.

  36. 36
    StephenB says:

    Willliam Spearshake

    AVS, exactly. Until they can propose the nature of a designer who isn’t a god, what else can I think?

    You can begin by saying something rational. Your statement is as unintelligible as that of AVS. ID doesn’t “propose” a designer it “infers” a designer. Like AVS, you begin by claiming that ID “assumes” a designer, but as soon as you are called on it, you change the word to “propose,” which can mean just about anything.

    Try to make sense when you write. It is uncharitable to purposely write in a fog, especially when you are misrepresenting someone else’s paradigm.

    I issue to you the same challenge I put to AVS. Provide a step by step account of ID’s inferential process and tell us at exactly what point the religious element is introduced and describe what form it takes.

  37. 37
    anthropic says:

    WS 24

    Anthropic: “That’s why science was invented in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”

    That may come as a surprise to the Greeks, the Arabs (who kept inquiry alive while the Europeans were squabbling over Popes) and the Chinese. They may not have followed the modern scientific process, but it worked pretty well for them.
    ———————————————
    Actually, WS, most historians now agree that science was created in Christian Europe, not elsewhere. Aristotle was a great observer, but neither he nor the other Greek philosophers created the scientific method. The Arabs decided that Allah was irrational around 1000 AD, which meant that the idea of a rational, law following universe was “shirk”, blasphemy. No wonder they steadily fell behind Christian Europe!

    The Chinese developed some great technology, such as gunpowder but were slow to utilize it effectively. In any case they never developed the scientific method either, which is why relatively small European nations half a world away could impose their will on the vastly larger Chinese nation by the 1800s.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    SB: Back in the ID Foundations series no 1 I discussed the design inference process, including illustrating it as a flowchart. At precisely no point is there any assumption or assertion of the identity or nature of a designer, other than the acceptance that such is possible. KF

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On the rise of modern science as a major, self-sustaining, progressive cultural project and institution and its worldview roots, from Dan Peterson’s What’s the big deal about Intelligent Design? in the Dec 22 2005 American Spectator . . . NB, I would phrase the matter in terms of the rise of the modern natural sciences (I don’t like the American tendency to speak in terms of “Science” because of the many ambiguities):
    ___________

    >> . . . from a materialist perspective, which holds as a matter of faith that God does not exist, any effort to show that life is designed will necessarily be an exercise in falsehood. If one defines the universe as consisting only of material forces, there is no intelligent designer and hence there can be no intelligent design. Materialism thus rules ID out of bounds, and holds it to be false, by definition.

    That is what leads to the emphatic claims that intelligent design is “not science.” ID transgresses the central tenet of materialism. But are materialism and science the same thing? Must all science be based on a view that matter and energy are “all there is,” and that there cannot possibly be an ordering intelligence behind the creation of life, the design of physical laws, and the place of human beings in the cosmos? Will a theistic worldview stop science in its tracks, as some materialists claim, because scientists who accept design will throw up their hands, and refer all explanations to “the will of God”?

    No, no, and no. The attempt to equate science with materialism is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history [–> notice the history problem, again!] show otherwise.

    IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.” . . . While researching this thesis, Stark found to his surprise that “some of my central arguments have already become the conventional wisdom among historians of science.” He is nevertheless “painfully aware” that most of the arguments about the close connection between Christian belief and the rise of science are “unknown outside narrow scholarly circles,” and that many people believe that it could not possibly be true.

    Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.

    There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.

    Recent scholarship in the history of science reveals that this commitment to rational, empirical investigation of God’s creation is not simply a product of the “scientific revolution” of the 16th and 17th centuries, but has profound roots going back at least to the High Middle Ages. The development of the university system in medieval times was, of course, almost entirely a product of the Church. Serious students of the period know that this was neither a time of stagnation, nor of repression of inquiry in favor of dogma. Rather, it was a time of great intellectual ferment and discovery, and the universities fostered rational, empirical, systematic inquiry.

    A newly published work by Thomas Woods (How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) is replete with far more examples of the contributions of medieval scholars than can be mentioned here. But as Woods recounts, one need only look at some of the leading figures in the universities in the 1200s to see that they were already well along in the development of principles of empirical scientific inquiry. Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, wrote in Opus Maius:

    Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment.

    Albertus Magnus — prodigious scholar, naturalist, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, and member of the Dominican order — affirmed in his De Mineralibus that the purpose of science is “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.” Another 13th-century figure, Robert Grosseteste, who was chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, has been identified as “the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment,” according to Woods.

    WHEN THE DISCOVERIES of science exploded in number and importance in the 1500s and 1600s, the connection with Christian belief was again profound. Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God’s creation and discover its glories. Perhaps the greatest scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, was a fervent Christian who wrote over a million words on theological subjects [–> Also, note his General Scholium to Principia and Query 31 to Opticks]. Other giants of science and mathematics were similarly devout: Boyle [ –> cf his The Christian Virtuoso, on a Christian Scholar as Scientist], Descartes, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal. To avoid relying on what might be isolated examples, Stark analyzed the religious views of the 52 leading scientists from the time of Copernicus until the end of the 17th century. Using a methodology that probably downplayed religious belief, he found that 32 were “devout”; 18 were at least “conventional” in their religious belief; and only two were “skeptics.” More than a quarter were themselves ecclesiastics: “priests, ministers, monks, canons, and the like.”

    Down through the 19th century, many of the leading figures in science were thoroughgoing Christians. A partial list includes Babbage [–> cf. 9th Bridgewater Thesis, and especially its probability theory based answer to Hume in the face of convergent multiple, agreeing witnesses], Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Maxwell, Mendel, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). A survey of the most eminent British scientists near the end of the 19th century found that nearly all were members of the established church or affiliated with some other church.

    In short, scientists who were committed Christians include men often considered to be fathers of the fields of astronomy, atomic theory, calculus, chemistry, computers, electricity, genetics, geology, mathematics, and physics. In the late 1990s, a survey found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God and an afterlife — a percentage that is basically unchanged since the early 20th century. A listing of eminent 20th-century scientists who were religious believers would be far too voluminous to include here — so let’s not bring coals to Newcastle, but simply note that the list would be large indeed, including Nobel Prize winners.

    Far from being inimical to science, then, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced it. Scientists who (in Boyle’s words) viewed nature as “the immutable workmanship of the omniscient Architect” were the pathfinders who originated the scientific enterprise. The assertion that intelligent design is automatically “not science” because it may support the concept of a creator is a statement of materialist philosophy, not of any intrinsic requirement of science itself. >>
    ___________

    Again, we see the ideology driven distortion of history, here regarding the worldviews roots, nature and origins of modern science.

    It is time to set the record straight and clear the air.

    KF

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Newton in the General Scholium to Principia, as clipped in my always linked note (as in always there). Note, Principia is the greatest single work of modern science, consolidating the triumph of the Scientific Revolution and shaping our outlook ever after:

    _____________

    >> . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

    This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato’s third alternative [–> in The Laws Bk X] and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. [Cf also his Rules of Reasoning.] >>
    ______________

    The phrase Natural Philosophy illustrates Newton’s thinking that what we call scientific investigations are inescapably philosophical, an exercise in epistemology on empirical observations of the natural world. Justly grounded conclusions are Knowledge . . . and “Science” is simply a modified form of the Latin word for knowledge. (Our English term traces to the Greek, gnosis.)

    In the above, Newton makes a philosophical-theological case, informed by his philosophical, theological and Scriptural background, and actually holds that such plays a legitimate role in epistemological investigations of the natural world.

    KF

  41. 41
    Dionisio says:

    #34 KF

    It is beginning to look a lot like what is really going on is the notion that a designer of the cosmos is not possible and a designer of life on earth is effectively impossible as well.
    On that premise, no amount of evidence pointing inductively to design will ever be enough.
    But, at the cost of injecting a priori evolutionary materialism as a question-begging censor on scientific thought regarding origins.

    Exactly!

    PS. Minor disagreement: It is beginning to look…
    IMO it has looked like that quite a long time, but you are very nice, courteous and polite on that. Definitely a lesson for me to learn from. 🙂

  42. 42
    AVS says:

    UB,
    First, since you don’t mention anything about IC, I’ll assume that you are agreeing it does require a designer.
    As for semiotics, as I see it, the “documentation” is the equivalent to data collection and the assumption of a designer is the conclusion you come to. This of course is if all systems are the result of a designing agent. The problem here is your definition of a defining agent. If you define it as an intelligent being then you are comparing things like language and number systems, which all are known to be designed by intelligent beings, to the one thing we do not know has an intelligent designer: biology. This would be a very poor comparison. However, if you define your designing agent more broadly, you will soon find that there certainly are systems that contain information without an intelligent driving force that creates it.
    Once again I am afraid your arguments fail the biology test. What you say may sound good to your friends here, but to someone who has a good grasp of the details of biology it’s just nonsense.

  43. 43
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    First, since you don’t mention anything about IC, I’ll assume that you are agreeing it does require a designer.

    That all depends on the degree of complexity. A 2 piece IC system probably doesn’t require an intelligent designer.

    As for arguments, you don’t have any and you have also failed the biology test.

    UB, the only case for IC is that “we don’t know how it came about, therefore it irreducibly complex.”

    Spoken like an ignorant troll on an agenda.

  44. 44
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    If I may be so bold as to speak for WS, maybe he thinks that ID relies on the assumption that there is a designer (a god in just about all cases), which by default makes it a religious doctrine.

    That is incorrect and exposes your ignorance, again. The only assumption ID relies on is the assumption that we have an ability to determine the root cause of the things we are investigating.

  45. 45
    Joe says:

    If someone could just step up and demonstrate that non-design processes can produce what we call IC then the IC argument would fall. And it is very telling that no one has been able to do so. Incessant whining is not going to do it and that is all AVS, et al., have.

  46. 46
    AVS says:

    Stephen,
    “Assumes” and “requires” both work and are interchangeable for my purposes. That is why I used both of them. When it comes down to it, both semiosis and IC assume a designer. Therefore, in the end they both require a designer to input that original “meaning” into a semiotic system or create that original “structure function relationship” in a supposed IC system.

    “I would say that both semiosis/irreducible complexity require a designer to define meaning/create a structure-function relationship.” Is what I said, and you need the whole sentence for it to make sense. I left the word “respectively” off the end, maybe that is what is throwing you off. I was drawing parallels about why these two things BOTH assume and require a designer:
    Semiotics needs that initial input of “meaning”
    IC needs that first input of “structure-function relationship”

    I am certainly not going to try to “explain anything ID does from beginning to end,” as I have no idea really what it does. All I am saying is that if ID is based on semiotics and IC, as UB says, then it is based on BOTH the assumption and requirement of a designer.

    I hope I have made myself more clear.

  47. 47
    Andre says:

    AVS

    You say;

    the one thing we do not know has an intelligent designer: biology

    What gives?

    Is ATP with its stator, rotor and shaft not enough evidence for you?

    How about the Flagella? Not enough evidence for you?

    How about the Ribosome? Not enough evidence for you?

    How about error correction systems in biological systems? Not enough evidence for you?

    How about information (highly specified) to run the hardware not enough evidence for you?

    The Heart as a pump?

    The intestines as fuel extractors and waste management?

    The brain a s a processor?

    The nervous system as a environmental feedback system?

    If this fails to convince you about design then it obviously holds that you think there is some natural process that can do it, in light of the fact that we know with certainty that only designers can do such thinks the burden of proof for your extraordinary claim that natural process can do so lies with you!

    Evidence please?

  48. 48
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    “Assumes” and “requires” both work and are interchangeable for my purposes.

    Only if your “purpose” is obfuscation.

    When it comes down to it, both semiosis and IC assume a designer.

    Stonehenge does too.

  49. 49
    AVS says:

    Andre, first of all, ATP doesn’t have a stator, rotor, and shaft. You need to do a better job of copy/pasting. There is a lot of information on both the evolution of the flagella and ribosome. Error correction systems can be carried out by the enzymes that are already used to synthesize polymers. The evolution of the circulatory, digestive, and nervous system are all well studied. Just because you get your information from only one source, doesn’t mean the other side of the argument doesn’t exist.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS:

    UB,
    First, since you don’t mention anything about IC, I’ll assume that you are agreeing it does require a designer.

    This sounds a lot like confusing an inductively grounded inference on many examples and associated analysis, with the notion that such is equal to qurstion-begging.

    Your problem is with the logic of induction, not that design theory is improperly assuming what it infers.

    In short, you are in trouble with the logic on which science rests.

    Let me here clip from Newton in Opticks, Query 31 on basic scientific inference-making:

    As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

    Is Newton merely begging questions? is it question egging to generalise from the pattern of the regular rising of the sun or the fall of heavy objects to scientific laws underlying such?

    And, on the concept that there are complex entities whose core function is based on the interaction of multiple, well-matched, properly arranged and coupled parts, such that failure or removal of any one core part leads to functional failure, this is a commonplace of experience.

    What Behe has identified is that there are such structures in life forms from unicellular ones up to us. Which is easily demonstrable to the satisfaction of a reasonable person. In fact the use of genetic knockout studies in biology pivots on it.

    Behe’s point is that because of that integrated necessary componets structure, direct incremental creation is not credible and the falling together of things that worked for other things so presto they are well matched and perform a new function all at once is also not credible. He has further, documented that there is a revealing lack of empirical documentation of origin of such systems incrementally.

    In addition, Menuge points out the five-fold challenge to get to such IC entities by exaptation:

    For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

    C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

    C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

    C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

    C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

    C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

    ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

    This is not a matter of simplistic question begging on the part of design thinkers, and it would be appreciated if you would cease from setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures.

    KF

    PS: You may find the early ID foundations article on IC here useful, and also page 2 that deals with knockout studies.

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Andre, first of all, ATP doesn’t have a stator, rotor, and shaft.

    Blind watchmaker evolution doesn’t have anything to say about ATP synthase.

    There is a lot of information on both the evolution of the flagella and ribosome.

    And yet nothing that demonstrates unguided evolution can produce either.

    Error correction systems can be carried out by the enzymes that are already used to synthesize polymers.

    So what? Tat doesn’t mean the bluind watchmaker didit.

    The evolution of the circulatory, digestive, and nervous system are all well studied

    Again, so what? Just because they are well studied doesn’t mean the blind watchmaker didit.

    Just because you get your information from only one source, doesn’t mean the other side of the argument doesn’t exist.

    You have proven that there isn’t any other side. Thanks.

  52. 52
    the bystander says:

    KF,
    IMHO, Neither ID nor Evolution has properly explained origin and spread of life. Taking my thoughts from that point, is there any consensus on where and how ID agent intervenes to guide a complex process like flagellum formation that you have mentioned ? Do you think the agent intervenes in the myriad processes of various systems in millions of different species ?

  53. 53
    AVS says:

    So because we don’t know exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved, this means that it couldn’t have?
    So because we can take out an entire protein involved in the bacterial flagellum and see a loss of function, this means that it is irreducibly complex?
    Are we just going to ignore the massive amounts of variation in structure of bacterial flagella across species? Some species with more complex flagella, some with less?
    Are we just going to ignore the homology between the bacterial flagella and the bacterial injectisome?
    How about the similarity between the FliH,I, and J proteins to F and V ATPases?
    Yes at first glance the bacterial flagellum may look irreducibly complex, but when you get down into the details you can’t ignore the evidence that suggests its evolution.

  54. 54
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: By “Hypotheses” Newton meant speculative metaphysical pronouncements injected as controlling a prioris without room for empirical test.

  55. 55
    kairosfocus says:

    B: On OOL, and OO body plans, we are dealing with explanatory models of the remote, unobservable past based on traces from them accessible to us and causal factors that should be shown to be capable of causing the like effects on our observation [the Vera Causa principle]. Design theory does not pretend to be able to give a comprehensive fully true account of that remote past, just that there are empirical traces from it that show tested and reliable signs of design. Codes, algorithms, executing machinery, FSCO/I and the like, to wit for OOL. It can be readily shown that such signs are observed to result from design, on trillions of cases in point. It has not been shown that such credibly do per our observation come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. The imposition of an a priori evolutionary materialist view on the explanatory narratives devised to account for that past of origins, then is in violation of vera causa, and the commonplace presentation of the resulting narratives as “fact, fact, fact” comparable to the roundness of the earth or gravity or the orbiting of Moons and planets etc, is a confusion of what is directly observable with an explanation. It would be helpful to understand that explanations of an unobservable past thus cannot be facts, they can only be at most empirically reliable and scientifically useful as a result. Where all scientific explanations are subject to correction or replacement in light of further empirical investigations. In this context, the design inference is a modest one: that there are itemisable empirical observations in nature, in the cosmos and the world of life that per vera causa point to design as best causal explanatory factor as opposed to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. KF

  56. 56
    AVS says:

    Yes, because languages, the car, and your house all have a designer, therefore we can extrapolate this out to mean that biology has a designer.
    Makes perfect sense.

  57. 57
    Andre says:

    AVS

    What does evolve mean to you? AVS? That a bunch of molecules by pure luck and chance started a bunch of chemical reactions and then presto 3 billion years later the end product of those chemical reactions is you?

    Is this what evolve means to you AVS?

  58. 58
    AVS says:

    Evolve means changes in a population which effect subsequent generations.
    Or was it a rhetorical question because you have nothing important to say?

  59. 59
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS:

    Again, with all due respect, you strawmannise.

    The issue with the flagellum is that it is demonstrably IC, with some 30 parts that once one is removed, destroy function. Cf Scott Minnich’s empirical work on that.

    The issue beyond that is to account for such.

    Stepwise incremental accumulation is blocked by the implication that natural selection, so called, is not foresighted and will cull out non-performing changes.

    This leaves exaptations, which face Menuge’s challenges C1 – 5.

    In fact, there is no reasonable incrementalist or exaptation account of the origin of the flagellum. The suggested TTSS, seems to be DERIVATIVE of the flagellum, and it is in any case also IC as a subsystem.

    This has long since been discussed in serious literature.

    Now, I have to get back to that transition, I just had an urgent call that demands act now.

    KF

  60. 60
    Andre says:

    AVS

    Andre, first of all, ATP doesn’t have a stator, rotor, and shaft. You need to do a better job of copy/pasting.

    The Stator

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2570231/

    The rotor

    http://www.jbc.org/content/276/3/1665

    The shaft

    http://nature.berkeley.edu/~goster/pdfs/EMB.pdf

    I must be imagining this and obviously these researchers too!

  61. 61
    Andre says:

    AVS

    Yes! I like your answer but please tell, how does that make molecules man?

  62. 62
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Sigh. Your definition of evolution is a slip slide. There is a huge difference between empirical micro-changes, often by loss of function, and the grand narrative across the tree of life from OOL to the dozens of major body plans. And, there is simply no adequate empirical warrant for inferring the latter from the former, the controlling notion is implicit imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism, by which such MUST have happened by some evolutionary pathway on blind chance and mechanical necessity never mind the issues and challenges. This can be detailed but I have no time to do so now — I must respond to that call NOW, I suggest strongly as a first step you read the UD Weak Argument Correctives in a sober spirit rather than with a selectively hyperskeptical rhetorical grid.

  63. 63
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    Stepwise incremental accumulation is blocked by the implication that natural selection, so called, is not foresighted and will cull out non-performing changes.

    Actually, we now know that neutral and even deleterious mutations can become fixed in a population. Non-performing changes are not necessarily culled out.

  64. 64
    AVS says:

    Andre, that’s ATP synthase, the protein complex that makes ATP. As I have to say to most of your friends here, be careful about what you say.
    As for the evolution of this structure, we can look at the variations in different species, which act as snapshots of he evolution of this complex (the same can be done for the bacterial flagellum). The difficult part is understanding how these variations came about, and in the process determine the evolution of the structure.

  65. 65
    Andre says:

    Neutral theory…….

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Stepwise did not work, welcome eek punk! when that did not work we got evo devo, and when that went bust we got Neutral theory… when that goes bunk we will be back at stepwise cause no matter how absurd we just can’t allow that design foot in the door!

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    AVS- ID is NOT anti-evolution as ID is OK with evolving by design. However no one even knows how to model unguided evolution as it comes down to nothing but sheer dumb luck. That is not science.

  67. 67
    Joe says:

    CLAVDIVS:

    Actually, we now know that neutral and even deleterious mutations can become fixed in a population.

    Actually we don’t know but people have speculated.

  68. 68
    Andre says:

    AVS

    If you must I was talking about the molecular machine, I assumed you’d know that, my apology for not stating it clearly! But if you think I’m conceding think again because you have to show how such a system “evolved” in any incremental stages… no energy to the cell no cell period!

  69. 69
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    As for the evolution of this structure, we can look at the variations in different species, which act as snapshots of he evolution of this complex (the same can be done for the bacterial flagellum).

    What a crock- that is the same crock used to “explain” the alleged evolution of the vision system. And until you can model unguided processes producing ATP synthase, flagella or any other protein complex, all you are doing is whining.

  70. 70
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Evolve means changes in a population which effect subsequent generations.

    Even YECs accept evolution as defined as broadly as that. That- such a broad definition- makes any discussion wrt ID, Creation and evolutionism, virtually impossible.

  71. 71
    Andre says:

    AVS

    “As for the evolution of this structure, we can look at the variations in different species, which act as snapshots of he evolution of this complex (the same can be done for the bacterial flagellum). The difficult part is understanding how these variations came about, and in the process determine the evolution of the structure.”

    We have many variations of tennis rackets, engines, legs, hearts, lungs but they are still just that…… You can do better AVS give me something to really go think about!

  72. 72
    AVS says:

    Yes, kairos, every argument I make is a strawman. Let’s ignore the scientific evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Great.
    And also the consensus is that the bacterial flagellum evolved from the T3SS, not the other way around. Yes it was proposed at one point but the evidence suggests otherwise.

    The problem with the deletion experiments is that they do nothing to rule out evolution. The deletion of an entire protein is not representative of what is really going on. It is much more likely that instead of the lack of a protein and the function that it carries out in bacterial flagella today, there was a slightly different protein there that carried out the same function, or carried out two functions and has since lost the other for example.

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    AVS

    So there are variations in flagellum so what? Who is arguing about that? It is observed it has been tested and it has been verified! Here is what you need to realize it’s still Flagella, just like a ford, Nissan, and Toyota is still a car!

  74. 74
    AVS says:

    It would appear, Andre, that you are completely incapable of thinking. Especially about biological matters.
    There are numerous forms of energy, ways to store it, and ways to convert it. The “you have to show every incremental step of evolution of this here organism or molecular machine” argument is getting ridiculous. Unless you have something good to say, sayonara.

  75. 75
    Andre says:

    AVS<blockquoteor carried out two functions and has since lost the other for example.

    Evidence for the other so called function? Or does this fall under the new vestigial term of 2014?

  76. 76
    Andre says:

    AVS

    See you later when you’ve come back with real evidence! I look forward to it! Blow me away with what you have!

  77. 77
    AVS says:

    YES the molecule-car comparison. My favorite. Are you going to start talking about tornadoes and junkyards next? You must have been awful at puzzles as a kid because you couldn’t fit the pieces together if your life depended on it.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    AVS says:

    GOOD JOB ANDRE, you have finally said something that makes sense. Sticker for you.
    Now, the question is, is ATP synthase the only possible mechanism of generating ATP?

  80. 80
    Andre says:

    AVS

    Not to spoil your weekend I know this is devastating for you but a flagella is a flagella just like homo sapiens is homo sapiens, we have tall ones, small ones overweight ones, muscular ones feminine ones but they are all homo sapiens!

    There I used a biological comparison is that ok with you?

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS, I pause and note that there you go again with a strawman caricature, here, that I am ignoring claimed scientific evidence for origin of IC systems. I gave outline issues, and pointed out I don’t have time for elaborations, the on the ground world is coming in my front door, and pointed you to pivotal issues C1 – 5 and the issue of incremental development, where btw speculated random drift to create complex functionally specific structures WITHOUT selection filtering is a classic on the all at one problem so puts you into the needle in haystack problem on steroids, and I gave onward readings. Instead of addressing them (incl the UD post by me on IC) you projected a falsehood, a caricature to knock over. Do better than that please. If you have a problem with habitual strawmannising (a typical Darwinist debate tactic, on long observation . . . ), that is your problem not mine so kindly refrain from shooting at the messenger. KF

  82. 82
    Dr JDD says:

    Andre – AVS is being facetious with technicalities: he knew you meant “ATP synthase” rather than ATP and is trying to win an argument with the tactic of “making your opponent look like a fool” approach.

    Let us be clear about something, and go back to basics. I am tired of these double standard arguments from materialists that they fail to even acknowledge. This is for the benefit of the reader who has an open mind to the subject – I am not too bothered about what people like AVS, Evolve, WS etc think about my comments.

    Let us give the materialists their homology. Let them have the fact that simpler organisms have simpler structures. Let them have the observation that those organisms which appear further away from human likeness or another likeness, appear to have greater differences in the genetic code for the same gene than those that appear closer (of course, putting to one side that when this was done phenotypically it was shown by molecular evidence to be wrong in many cases, therefore is now done on molecular homology).

    You can have all that. You can even have your “ideas” about how say a ribosome evolved, by going to the simplest organisms that have ribosomal structures, and comparing their similarity on the molecular level to more complex organisms, like humans. You can take that assumption and believe that because a simpler organism has a simpler version and the more complex organism appears to have built on that simpler version, that it must be related and have a common ancestor. Have it, I say.

    Yet you are still left with a fundamental problem: that problem is getting information in a specified complex form to allow self-replication and evolution to even commence and occur. This is not a “god of the gaps” argument, this is a “you have absolutely no proof nor experimental evidence to support abiogenesis” argument. There is no working hypothesis that qualifies as a working hypothesis (i.e. has not yet been falsified through experimentation).

    Secondly, you cannot pull the “well we don’t know the original conditions” card as that is, by your own criticisms of the designer inference, unscientific then. So you can argue till you are blue in the face that the evidence points to common descent but what you cannot do is claim that the origin of biological information has support from naturalistic processes. And in the materialists worldview, abiogenesis is absolutely necessary for the rest to fall into place too.

    Therefore, the competing criticisms of a designer as the origin of biological information (stop at that point – no need to go down the YEC vs OEC vs TE route just yet) are unfounded, as they are therefore in complete parallel to assumptions of abiogenesis. And we are not talking about something like a snowflake, which is inherent to the properties of physical things around us and its medium (water) that we can describe and explain through natural laws we observe in place, we are talking about ordering of chemical constituents into ordering that we do not see occurring when the constituent components are mixed together in a whole host of different conditions.

    Further to this, we go back further than abiogenesis and we find as all of us well know on here, that the formation of our universe is true (i.e. had a beginning, came into being rather than always existing) and that requires a force or causal agent for its beginning. Additionally the natural laws we observe are so specific and necessary for the stable universe we observe around us that the chances of randomness accounting for these are inexplicably small.

    This is therefore why I contest the notion that you cannot hypothesise and test for a designer God. The hypothesis of the Judeo-Christian persuasion has always been a designer God who transcends this universe, created the universe in an instant, and upholds order within the universe. In our modern age we forget that those are what the Judeo-Christian belief system predicted. Thus as we observe this, we can certainly say there are aspects of the designer that we have been able to hypothesise and test.

    However the problem is worsened for the materialist for despite their insistence that belief in a transcendent designer is not scientific and therefore should be rejected, we have the much famed multiverse theory. There is nothing in the multiverse theory that makes it “more scientific” than a transcendent God as a “theory” and it is essentially subject to the exact same criticisms that materialists lay on the designer God (being outside of this universe and untestable). Materialists love to shroud this with statements such as: “we cannot detect it now but someday we will potentially be able to, therefore it is science” and “the existence of gravitational waves provides evidence for the multiverse” – both of which are ludicrous arguments that do not validate the multiverse hypothesis as any less of an argument from faith than the God hypothesis. Finally, since the Design hypothesis most accurately falls into the “inference to the best explanation” category (a specific and fine-tuned universe gives the best inference that it was created that way on purpose), we have more reason to accept the existence of a designer than we would of a multiverse.

    So let us not be fooled by this fancy talk by many materialists about how we can theoretically show this that or another. It boils down to these very simple arguments. To the reader again, I fully know that the materialists on here will protest this conclusion, claim that the multiverse and abiogenesis are science given some (and other) reasons I give above, but if you are willing to find truth, use your discernment and ask yourself if there really is a difference between those events and a transcendent designer and anyone honest with themselves will see quite clearly the answer it “no”.

  83. 83
    Andre says:

    There is probably more that one mechanism but again so what? if there are more than one it does not serve your case in any way…..

  84. 84
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Now, the question is, is ATP synthase the only possible mechanism of generating ATP?

    No, but ATP synthase exists and as such requires an explanation.

    Let’s ignore the scientific evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.

    We cannot ignore that which doesn’t exist. And seeing that no one can model unguided evolution producing a flagellum that would mean there isn’t any scientific evidence for it. You are lying, again.

    The problem with the deletion experiments is that they do nothing to rule out evolution.

    As I said the deletion experiments are just steps in the process. Also yours doesn’t have anything but sheer dumb luck to explain what we observe. So that would be a problem for science.

  85. 85
    AVS says:

    And it’s exactly what I would expect from someone with your scientific background. There are variations of the bacterial flagellum just like there are variations of humans, congratulations. That’s the reasoning I would expect from a middle schooler. Now if we take a scientific approach, we can see that both of these things have variations because of genetic differences. There are underlying causes to these variations and we can analyze them in order to patch together ancestral history. Just like your DNA sequence can suggest who your relatives are, genetic analysis among other studies, can suggest the ancestral components of the bacterial flagella.
    You should really quit while you’re ahead.
    Nevermind, too late.
    You’re just digging a deeper and deeper grave.

  86. 86
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Yes, kairos, every argument I make is a strawman.

    No, some are blatant lies.

  87. 87
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    You’re just digging a deeper and deeper grave.

    It’s YOUR grave, AVS.

  88. 88
    AVS says:

    I don’t have to put any effort into making my opponent look like a fool, JDD, they do it for me usually.

  89. 89
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    I don’t have to put any effort …

    And it shows in your ignorance-laden posts

  90. 90
    AVS says:

    Thanks for the comic relief Joe. It’s been fun as always guys.
    I hope the fact that a portion of your tax money is going into the research you so vehemently deny makes your blood boil.
    Have a nice day!
    =)

  91. 91
    Box says:

    WS #31,
    So, according to you, ID is a religious doctrine BECAUSE Barry doesn’t accept blasphemy on his site? IOW Barry’s forum rules equals ID theory? Is that your argument?

  92. 92
    Joe says:

    Thanks for the lies and total crap, AVS. It is always entertaining with you around. Unfortunately for you there isn’t any research that I vehemently deny. Obviously you have serious issues.

  93. 93
    RodW says:

    It seems to me that all of you, on both sides of the argument, are taking for granted the notion that young earth creationism is religiously based. If we’re going to take them at their word, as Barry says we should do, we’d have to say its not religiously based. YECs are upfront about believing scripture is the literal word of God but they also say that science can’t contradict scripture when properly interpreted. So the evidence for a young earth is scientific. Do any of you disagree with this?

  94. 94
    Joe says:

    RodW- Scripture is silent on the age of the Earth. That means YEC is based on one interpretation of scripture. Also anything based on scripture is religiously based.

  95. 95
    RodW says:

    Joe,

    YECs would claim scripture is definately not silent on the age of the earth, but more to the point, they would claim the scientific evidence supports a young earth so religion is beside the point. This is always the claim of creation-scientists and its the whole point of the Kentucky Creation Museum.

  96. 96
    Joe says:

    RodW- YECs can make any claim they want. It doesn’t matter if they cannot support it. And they cannot support the claim that scripture discusses the age of the earth.

    But yes YECs say that science points to a younger than 4.5x billion year old earth. And they have made some very valid points in that regard. However they are still a ways off from 6,000- 12,000 years.

  97. 97
    StephenB says:

    AVS

    I was drawing parallels about why these two things BOTH assume and require a designer:
    Semiotics needs that initial input of “meaning”
    IC needs that first input of “structure-function relationship”

    Don’t you understand what you just did? You just asserted that every design requires a designer. You didn’t assume that a designer is necessary; you concluded that a designer was necessary.

    I am certainly not going to try to “explain anything ID does from beginning to end,” as I have no idea really what it does.

    Precisely. On the one hand, you admit that you don’t know anything about the process. On the other hand, you insist that the process that you know nothing about includes the assumption of a designer. Never mind the fact that those who do know the process have presented a flow chart that describes every step from beginning to end, proving that no such assumption has been included.

    Don’t you think it is uncharitable to try to discredit something that you know nothing about even to the point of making things up? Don’t you think it is uncharitable to ignore the flow chart so as to remain willfully ignorant of the facts?

  98. 98
    Dr JDD says:

    RodW @93:
    I am a “YEC” if you want to label people, and I would confess that this is due to Biblical (religious if you wish) reasons rather than scientific, primarily. Note, that does not mean science offers no support for this view, I just prioritise Scripture over everything else.

    If we had no Scripture the age of the Earth would not matter too much and of course I would go with what seemed reasonable from what we observe. The age of the Earth comes down to essentially radioisotope dating – this is the only strong evidence that would point to a ~4bya age of the Earth itself. Bear in mind other pieces of evidence may call that into question, which is why YEC’s often contest this method as accurate. Personally, to me it is not of huge concern to try and disprove radioisotope dating and I am quite intellectually satisfied in what I believe as a YEC.

    However through various other reasons I have strong personal evidence that a) there is a Designer/Creator and b) the Bible is the inspired revealed Word of that Creator. Therefore, if that is true (especially b) we have a first-hand testimony and account of One who was there at the beginning, therefore this to me trumps anything a human many years ago could ever say by trying to work out the past.

    Which is more valuable in a court of law – the testimony of someone who thinks they know what happened or the testimony of someone (assuming true under oath) who witnessed something?

    However I would argue most YEC’s belief’s are based on primary acceptance of the Scriptures as evidence of God’s Word and therefore the supreme authority on all things it speaks of, above anything man says. Importantly, the establishing of the Bible as the Word of God is based on historical, archeological and other evidence that provide veracity for it to be true and trusted, rather than a blind acceptance of a religious book.

    Forgetting the Bible and the age of the earth though, independent of that it is ludicrous to assume that natural processes could upwards generate the complexity we see today from a primordial soup.

  99. 99
    AVS says:

    You see Stephen, the problem is that when you guys apply semiotics to biology, you are comparing things that we already know have been designed by the human mind to the the thing in question: biology. As I have said before, this is an awful comparison. Trying to apply semiotics to biology altogether sounds like a pile of cow manure in my opinion. As I said to UB, it depends on how you define the symbols and the meaning of your semiotic approach to the problem. I can say that rock strata in the grand canyon demonstrates past sedimentation rates, or that iron atom polarity in the seabed of atlantic oceanic ridge demonstrates the location of the Earth’s magnetic poles during the time that rock was formed, or vegetation and rock formations at coastlines demonstrate tidal history; none of these processes have an intelligent designer, but they do have meaning and represent information.
    And there you go in fact, three examples of a semiotic system that were not designed. All three prove UB’s original “universal observation” statement wrong.

    So semiotics is out the window, and IC only exists in the mind of individuals who refuse to look at the actual information we have collected on the systems they point to, so what is ID left with?
    Not much.

  100. 100
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    You see Stephen, the problem is that when you guys apply semiotics to biology, you are comparing things that we already know have been designed by the human mind to the the thing in question: biology.

    The comparison works.

    As I said to UB, it depends on how you define the symbols and the meaning of your semiotic approach to the problem.

    The standard definitions apply.

    I can say that rock strata in the grand canyon demonstrates past sedimentation rates, or that iron atom polarity in the seabed of atlantic oceanic ridge demonstrates the location of the Earth’s magnetic poles during the time that rock was formed, or vegetation and rock formations at coastlines demonstrate tidal history; none of these processes have an intelligent designer, but they do have meaning and represent information.

    None of those have anything to do with semiotics. Also you are confusing data with information.

    And there you go in fact, three examples of a semiotic system that were not designed.

    Only someone ignorant wrt semiotics would make such a claim.

  101. 101
    Mung says:

    I’m pretty sure that WS isn’t really a troll. Maybe we should lighten up.

  102. 102
    Tim says:

    Wow!

    I read an OP, watch a terrible football game, go to work, take a nap, and we are all already at 101. My favorites along the way. . .

    WS@1, looking for justification in some added context. That was hilarious! The unstated premises seemed to be “All blasphemy is acceptable on a website.” or possibly “The actions of a website sponsor necessarily indicate his motivations which in turn define the underlying structure of an unrelated inference.”

    See, that’s sort of the beauty of poor reasoning. As we try in vain to “guess” what possible premises could resuscitate the argument, the person who made the assertion can happily answer back, “nope, you’ve got me all wrong” without ever coming clean.

    WS, I am sure we have misunderstood you, so please feel free to add some more context.

    posts . . . floating by . . . and I although I appreciate KF’s and linger there for a bit, I know when I hit StephenB @35 and especially at @36 its going to be good. Thank you both.

    StephenB:

    You can begin by saying something rational. . . Try to make sense when you write. It is uncharitable to purposely write in a fog, especially when you are misrepresenting someone else’s paradigm.

    Man, that’s good stuff!

    It is incredibly trying to undo shadings and shadows while allowing people (the general) freedom to say what they want. Time for some verse:

    Of epics (and limericks?) my sweet muse Calliope,
    Please pardon this rant for, like trolls, it is dopey.
    What truth we detect, though,
    the list remains checked, oh,
    Still 100 posts after the initial OP!

  103. 103
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    You see Stephen, the problem is that when you guys apply semiotics to biology, you are comparing things that we already know have been designed by the human mind to the the thing in question: biology.

    That’s simply false.

    As I have said before, this is an awful comparison.

    Well, as I have said before, you’re wrong.

  104. 104
    Upright BiPed says:

    AVS,

    Trying to apply semiotics to biology altogether sounds like a pile of cow manure in my opinion.

    We’ve already been here.

  105. 105
    AVS says:

    So, UB, nothing to say about my three examples that ruin your supposed “universal semiotic systems result from design?” I mean in comment 32 you were just fine with calling the biosphere a semiotic system, so why not my examples? And don’t give me Joe’s BS excuse that I’m confusing data and information because we both know that s just you guys applying the very loose definition of information however you see fit.

    Anyone saying that what I say is “false” or “wrong” please feel free to demonstrate this. I have given examples of what I believe to be semiotic systems that do not have designers and as far as I can tell these systems fall within the constraints of the standard definition of semiotics. If I’m incorrect, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove me wrong. No?

    Maybe the problem for you guys is that this whole semiotics argument is nothing but a house of cards, built on your paper thin definitions of “semiotics” and “information.” Everything you guys say and do is twisted in a way so that in the end, the results are sure to prove your initial assumption: that biology was designed.

  106. 106
    Joe says:

    AVS- Your examples don’t have anything to do with semiotics. And the difference between data and information is explained in “The Privileged Planet”. Even Wikipedia says that to get information from data one has to add meaning. Don’t blame me for your ignorance, AVS.

    I challenge AVS to post the definition of semiotics and then demonstrate how its examples meet the definition.

  107. 107
    StephenB says:

    AVS

    You see Stephen, the problem is that when you guys apply semiotics to biology, you are comparing things that we already know have been designed by the human mind to the the thing in question: biology.

    Well, of course. DNA provides coded instructions to determine an organism’s individual traits. Among other things, semiotics involves the study of codes and the language of instruction. If we know that the latter is designed, why would it not make sense to inquire if the former was designed?

    As I have said before, this is an awful comparison. Trying to apply semiotics to biology altogether sounds like a pile of cow manure in my opinion.

    That’s like saying, “trying to apply the principles of communication and signals to the study of cellular communication and cell signaling sounds like a pile of cow manure.” You really are not thinking very clearly.

  108. 108
    AVS says:

    Do you not see how superficial your comparison is between the biological translation system and human codes and languages?
    Yes all these systems have a “code” of some sort that translates into “meaning,” but once you start digging deeper into the biological side of the equation, the differences become quite clear.

    I think the problem is that we as humans explain the translational system using letters and words (how else would we do it), which makes it seem like there is huge similarities between this system and actual languages themselves.

    My point is that when you get down to it, the biological translational system does not read letters and comprehend them into a meaning in any way like we do.

  109. 109
    Barry Arrington says:

    AVS:

    My point is that when you get down to it, the biological translational system does not read letters and comprehend them into a meaning in any way like we do.

    Take a sec to watch this video of robots working on cars:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjAZGUcjrP8

    Now, I take it that the robots run on software. I also take it that the robots don’t “read” the software and “comprehend” it into meaning like a human software engineer would. Now assume all trace of technology, civilization and life vanished from this planet except for these robots, which continued working away. If an alien happened along, under your reasoning he would not be entitled to infer the robots or the software operating them was designed. That is obviously wrong. Ergo, your reasoning is wrong.

  110. 110
    AVS says:

    At first glance, yes, this alien would be entitled to think both systems were designed. And this is because that first glance at both systems is extremely superficial, just like your semiotics comparison between the two.
    As I said, a more detailed look at these two systems would demonstrate the huge differences in their underlying mechanisms, one designed by intelligent minds, the other derived from natural properties and laws.

  111. 111
    AVS says:

    On a side note, the more I look into semiotics, the more it becomes apparent that nobody knows exactly what it is.
    Which is perfect for you guys, it allows you to define it in any way you want.

    In the end there is nothing else like the molecular basis of life, any attempt at a comparison to another system is completely superficial.

  112. 112
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    On a side note, the more I look into semiotics, the more it becomes apparent that nobody knows exactly what it is.

    Look deeper.

  113. 113
    AVS says:

    Feel free to educate me since you seem to know it so well.

  114. 114
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Do you not see how superficial your comparison is between the biological translation system and human codes and languages?

    There isn’t anything superficial about it. The ribosome is a genetic compiler- you have the source code coming in, that of the codons, and you have the object code coming out, that of the polypeptides. And if something is wrong with the source code the ribosome stops the process, just as our compilers would.

    And again, it was Crick who has defined what biological information is, and in this case functionality = meaning. Which is, when you think about it, why computer codes are written, to perform some function.

  115. 115
    Joe says:

    AVS- Codons represent amino acids. If there was a reaction that caused the codons to become amino acids that would be different and if that were the case we wouldn’t be talking about codes. We would be talking about formulas that illustrate those reactions.

    The genetic code is arbitrary, meaning it is not reducible to law nor any physical constraints. And then there is that representation part, that is where semiotics comes in. You have one type of molecule, a nucleotide triplet, representing another type of molecule, an amino acid. And as of today there isn’t any known chemical nor physical cause for the representations observed.

    But we do know of a cause tat can bring about arbitrary relationships and representations…

  116. 116
    AVS says:

    ” if something is wrong with the source code the ribosome stops the process”
    What exactly are you talking about here and where is the evidence for this?

    The correlation between codon and amino acid were arbitrary “choices” made by chemical evolution. The “choice” was based on and and can be reduced to chemical interactions between the earliest ancestral tRNA, aa-tRNA synthetases, and amino acids.
    Yes we do not know exactly how this system as we now know it evolved, and maybe we never will, but playing off the complexity of this problem and saying that it is impossible or not reducible is just you guys being completely ignorant of molecular evolution.

  117. 117
    Joe says:

    ” if something is wrong with the source code the ribosome stops the process”

    AVS:

    What exactly are you talking about here and where is the evidence for this?

    The ribosome is a genetic compiler!

    The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist.

    Think about it-

    What happens to a newly written or modified computer code that has an error? All new and modified codes have to go through a compiler.

    A compiler is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist!

    I bet if we were to watch we would see the compiler doing its thing right up to the point the error occurs and then spits it out much faster than if the code was OK, ie error free.

    Biologists need to be introduced to and experience computer science.

    Then this sort of discovery wouldn’t be so “shocking”.

    Compiler- source code in, object code out. Ribosome- mRNA in (string of nucleotides), polypeptide out (string of amino acids).

    AVS:

    The correlation between codon and amino acid were arbitrary “choices” made by chemical evolution.

    Evidence please.

    Yes we do not know exactly how this system as we now know it evolved,

    You can’t even model unguided processes doing it.

  118. 118
    AVS says:

    Interesting, I did not know the ribosome was capable of recognizing incorrect peptides. This really isn’t “shocking” though as both RNA polymerase and DNA pollymerase are capable of error correction.

    Your link doesn’t work for me and in the end your comparison is still incredibly superficial. “Code in, code out. Yup they’re the same” is about the level of reasoning I’d expect from a child.

    And as you and your friends always seem to have to turn to, “show me how it happened,” “you can’t even model it,” is just you guys demonstrating how little you understand about experimental biology. Do you know how difficult it is to model just a microsecond of random movement a protein would undergo?

  119. 119
    Joe says:

    So you are ignorant of what a compiler is and you accuse me of being a child? You have serious issues.

    And yes RNA and DNA polymerase are capable of error correction- unguided evolution can’t explain that either.

    Again, for the moron, with a compiler you have the SOURCE code going in and the OBJECT code coming out. It TRANSLATES one code into the other. With the ribosome you have one type of code going in and another type of code coming out. Geez I explained this such that a 7 year old could grasp it and you couldn’t. No surprise there.

    And you and your ilk always turn to insults, whiny cry-baby antics, BS innuendos and lies. There are such things as computers that can be used to produce models. And really, don’t blame us because your claims are untestable.

  120. 120
    AVS says:

    Yes, just keep screaming “EVOLUTION CAN”T EXPLAIN IT,” Joe and you’ll probably be right for a long time. But rest assured, eventually it will be explained. Enjoy your life between the closing gaps of science, and keep paying your taxes so we can keep doing our research!
    =)
    <3

  121. 121
    Joe says:

    ID is not anti-evolution you dimwit. And unguided processes can’t explain anything beyond disease and deformities, that much we already know.

    It must really bother you that the more we know and the more we uncover Intelligent Design gets stronger and stronger.

  122. 122
    Mung says:

    Hi Joe,

    “… no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations … were intentionally and specially guided.”

    The Variation of Plants and Animals and Plants Under Domestication, vol. II, p. 415

    There you have it from Chucky D himself.

    One might just have easily written:

    “… no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations … were not intentionally and specially guided.”

    But is it science?

    It’s not that “unguided” and “it just happened that’s all” can’t explain anything (they cant, but that’s not the point). It’s that they get their power from convincing otherwise rational people that no explanation is required.

  123. 123
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    Interesting, I did not know the ribosome was capable of recognizing incorrect peptides. This really isn’t “shocking” though as both RNA polymerase and DNA pollymerase are capable of error correction.

    If you indeed find that interesting, you might want to check out these posts:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89961.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90001.html

  124. 124
    Mung says:

    Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that william spearshake is the sock puppet of one Acartia_bogart.

    Acartia_bogart

    So, one more try. Why is the average theist’s ethical and moral standards better (more objective) than the average atheist’s? Of, more significantly, why is this concept important to theists? It only important to a theist because it allows them the false perception of moral superiority over atheists. If this allows you to sleep better at night, go for it.

    Mung: Why ought anyone even bother to attempt to provide you with an answer to that question?

    Acartia_bogart: Personally, I don’t care one way or the other.

    Mung: But given that you don’t care one way or another, why are you even bothering to post here at UD?

    Acartia_bogart: Let’s just call it a guilty pleasure.

Leave a Reply