Origin Of Life

Moshe Averick in USA Today on the confusion around origin of life

Spread the love

Image result Rabbi Moshe Maverick, author of Nonsense of a High Order, at USA Today:

Why are researchers having such difficulties discovering a naturalistic origin of life? “Certainly,” says Koonin, “this is not due to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life…. These make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.”

In other words, discovering how unguided naturalistic forces could assemble a living cell–a molecular machine that is more sophisticated and functionally complex than anything human technology ever has produced–is a problem of nightmarish proportions.More.

Because naturalism cannot consider intelligence as a feature of the universe, it’s one of those nightmares that will just keep coming back. The quest is to find out how something that could not possibly have just happened somehow just happened anyway.

Meanwhile, the evidence mounts that no other solution is possible but few dare factor it in.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

How naturalism rots science from the head down

and

Rabbi Moshe Averick challenges physicist Paul Davies on origin of life

41 Replies to “Moshe Averick in USA Today on the confusion around origin of life

  1. 1

    Excellent post.

    Posts like this always make me think of rvb8 who, according to his own words, keeps coming to this site expecting to see “the penny drop,” i.e. to see UD posters finally realizing the error of their ways in challenging Darwinian evolution and numerous other a/mat philosophies.

    In fact, the opposite of what rvb8 expects is happening.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Because naturalism cannot consider intelligence as a feature of the universe, it’s one of those nightmares that will just keep coming back. The quest is to find out how something that could not possibly have just happened somehow just happened anyway.

    I’m not sure what you mean by intelligence being a feature of the Universe. We know there’s intelligent life (sort of) because we’re here. If you’re referring to an Intelligent Designer or Creator how does that actually tell us anything about how it was done?

  3. 3
    es58 says:

    If you’re referring to an Intelligent Designer or Creator how does that actually tell us anything about how it was done?
    I don’t know but it might tell us how it wasn’t done, by a series of random event events.

  4. 4
  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    es58 @3:

    That’s a valid point. Thanks.

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    You must understand atheism, scepticism of religious claims, and plain non-belief in miracles or the super natural is not a modern phenomenon.

    No doubt someone can correct me, but in Psalms, or Proverbs, it is written that, ‘the fool in his heart says there is no God.’

    Now that tells me one thing, and only one thing, that atheists were known to exist even in Old Testsament times.

    Despite what Kairos may insinuate, atheism was a known and respected point of view in ancient Greece; I point to the great Democritus, and probably Epicurus.

    So the author, a Jewish cleric, says he is mystified that silly atheists won’t give up their pursuit of the unknowable. Yeah, forgive us for being curious!

    What a boring party pooper. It is precisely because it is such a difficult conumdrum (origins of life), that scientists pursue it.

    As each unbridgable divide, is bridged, as each milestone is reached the good Rabbai and his woefully, willfully,, ignorant, head burying, allies are pushed into ever diminishing corners like;

    ‘They’ll never solve the basic building blocks of life’; sorry solved.

    ‘The semi permiable cell membrane cannot be reproduced’; sorry, reproduced.

    Of course these lazy intellectuals do have their ultimate fall back position when a cell is actually recreated in the laboratory and that is; ‘See, it was deigned in the lab, therefore, God!’

    The search for life in the universe is moving along swimmingly, as more and more candidate planets are investigated. Life in the lab? Why not? If God could design such a poor planet and waste so much space on ice, sand, and salt water, surely humans can do just as poorly?

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    Truth Will Set You Free @1:

    Excellent post.

    Posts like this always make me think of rvb8 who, according to his own words, keeps coming to this site expecting to see “the penny drop,” i.e. to see UD posters finally realizing the error of their ways in challenging Darwinian evolution and numerous other a/mat philosophies.

    In fact, the opposite of what rvb8 expects is happening.

    Yes, that seems to be the case.

    They ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
    The most fascinating discoveries are still ahead.

    rvb8 and his party comrades are on the losing side of this debate, but they don’t realize it. Poor things.

    Check this out:

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/our-physics-color-commentator-has-published-a-novel/#comment-635445

  8. 8
  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    Dionisio,

    another link to ‘uncommondescent’, really?

    Honestly, you must broaden your reading to include, science sites, universities, laboratories, and NASA, and the evil UN. (They do great science.)

    You have no credibility if you are a one stop shopper here at UD.

    So, I and my comrades, (that would be the science community, as opposed to your comrades in the theocracy), are on the losing side of the debate are we? Interesting; for the losing side it feels incredibly lively and full of activity; your side, at Biologos, how is their research into proving that we must stop research at the ‘flagellum’, as God has forbidden further investigation? Seems to be infertile avenue to pursue research; stop when things look really complicated!

    But then why the frenzied activity in our labs, universities, and think tanks, the never ending pursuit of knowledge, and the quest for answers?

    Equally, why is your side of the debate so barren, resorting to sound bites, coffee table books, and opinion books; I point to the egregious Wells and his silly books, that garner no serious attention outside the design community.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, Dionisio has a point, there is a growing list of discussion issues where you charged in, making various confident manner claims. Then, on closer examination and raising other sides to the story, poof, off to the next thread. There is a pattern of

    — selective hyperskepticism, too often

    — a seemingly starry-eyed scientism [where this view that Science monopolises serious knowledge is a philosophical claim and so undermines itself], and one of

    — refusal to deal with the point that every worldview faces significant difficulties and needs to stand in its own right i/l/o factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.

    All, needing to be informed by first principles of right reason.

    KF

    PS: In response to your comments targetting me, here is Plato’s warning, which you would do well to heed:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  11. 11
    News says:

    Seversky at 2: In determining where to look for a solution, a good plan is to begin by ruling out what can’t possibly happen, rather than wasting resources on it. Especially don’t waste resources simply out of a sense of duty to the ideology that it must have happened that way.

    Where are we then? We study the system as if it were designed, to learn as much as we can of how and why it works the way it does.

    Along the way, we can learn a lot about evolution – why things work this way and not that way. We will then have a much clearer picture, though possibly with less static from the Darwin gallery.

  12. 12

    rvb8: What is your new reason for coming to this site on such a regular basis? Clearly, the wishful thinking “penny drop” idea isn’t happening anytime soon.

    Serious question. Do you enjoy the debate? Do you enjoy advocating for atheism? Do enjoy reading the UD posts and comments? All of the above?

  13. 13
    es58 says:

    rvb8 @6:

    you wrote:

    As each unbridgable divide, is bridged, as each milestone is reached … [the] woefully, willfully ignorant, head burying, allies are pushed into ever diminishing corners like…

    ‘The semi permiable cell membrane cannot be reproduced’; sorry, reproduced.

    I see the exact opposite, like whack-a-mole, each new level leads to discovery of greater complexity, for example, re: the re your example of lipids that make up the cell membrane, we read:

    Complexity abounds not just in the lipid bilayer at the cell surface, but within the cell as well. Inside the cell, we have organelles — the nucleus, the Golgi apparatus, the lysosome, and so on. Each one of these is surrounded by a different lipid bilayer. No two organelles have the same lipid composition. Moreover, a lipid bilayer has two layers: one pointing out, one pointing in. The lipid composition of the two halves of the bilayer is not the same. It differs completely. Moreover, lipids change their composition depending on the physiological state of the cell. It’s amazing. So, when I look at the complexity of the lipid bilayer that exists today and I compare it to the supposed primitive bilayer in the ancient past posited by evolutionary biologists, I cannot begin to understand how we went from that simple thing to a huge and complex thing today. Even if that simple membrane existed, how did it become today’s lipid bilayer? I cannot begin to get my head around that. So when I look at the lipid bilayer, I say, “Wow, this is amazing. How did that happen?”
    see here for more details:
    Interview: Biochemist Explains Why Lipids Are “Designed Objects” | Evolution News
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/01/interview_bioch/

    and this person has been studying exactly this area for 25 years (see link)

  14. 14
    DATCG says:

    Dionisio, enjoyed reading a paper you referenced at Biomedcentral dated 2014. Found your link here at Uncommon Descent. Just one of hundreds of scientific research papers you’ve linked from this site. As I have time, I read through some of them. Thanks!

    This specific paper you linked is interesting in exposing the assumptions you highlighted about transition to Eukaryotic cells. The paper questions and challenges long-held assumptions at the base of the Tree of Life and how transitions were made from one Domain to the next. I link the paper farther down.

    But first, the paper makes a statement that assumptions about transition to eukaryotic cells “remain poorly understood.”

    If the transition to a major Domain in the Tree of Life, remain poorly understood, built on assumptions, then what is Origin of Life built upon? If not more assumptions, poorly understood via materialistic presuppositions?

    Moshe Averick in the article posted by News here quotes scientist Eugene Koonin on Origin of Life…

    Eugene Koonin, microbiologist, 2011: “The origin of life field is a failure.”

    Koonin is Senior Investigator at National Center for Biotechnology Information(NCBI)

    He’s also part of Third Way Evolution which is directly challenging the failures of neo-Darwinism.

    Third Way Evolution…
    The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

    Again, assumptions. Neo-Darwinism …invokes a set of unsupported assumptions… and elevate Natural Selection into a unique creative force… without a real empirical basis

    The awareness of the Neo-Darwinian failures and criticism are not limited to ID scientist. Nor is Origin of Life failures. This is well known by all scientist in the field of evolutionary studies. Has been for sometime, but only recently gaining more publicity as groups split in the Darwin camps.

    What is more difficult? Transition to eukaryotic cells or Origin of Life?

    Is it easier to “assume” the Origin of Life from non-life? To overturn the Law of Biogenesis determined by Louis Pasteur, disproving spontaneous generation?

    Another quote from Moshe Averick, by James Tour…
    Professor of chemistry at Rice University, 2016: “[There is] collective cluelessness. … Those who say this is well worked out, they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis…. Those who think that scientists understand the details of life’s origin are wholly uninformed. Nobody understands. … When will the scientific community confess to the world that they are clueless on life’s origin, that the emperor has no clothes?”

    Now, here’s the link to the paper you referenced Dionisio…
    Bleb in, bleb out BIBO

    An inside-out origin for the eukaryotic cell…

    Background:
    Although the origin of the eukaryotic cell has long been recognized as the single most profound change in cellular organization during the evolution of life on earth, this transition(assumed) remains poorly understood.

    Models have always assumed that the nucleus and endomembrane system evolved within the cytoplasm of a prokaryotic cell.

    () my emphasis.

    Over Time it was assumed Outside-In. Their paper seeks to challenge those assumptions because for example,
    “endosymbiotic models (including the endospore model) require supplemental theories to explain the origin of the endomembrane system, the physical continuity of inner and outer nuclear membranes, and the formation of nuclear pores.

    But if you read it, they’re making their own assumptions, like the arrival of the Nuclear Pore Complex. Since this is historically based and cannot be observed – more assumptions within assumptions of the transition.

    Questions naturally arise by any curious student who loves science and research like this. Have we all been taught a bunch of assumptions about Tree of Life transitions that are not true? Including single most profound change, the major Domain prokaryote to eukaryote transition?

    If so, how many other transitions are built upon more assumptions? Sure would be a good study to find out.

    How many built-in assumptions are there across the multiplicity of transitions in the Tree of Life? And within each assumption, how many different transitions must take place using a “A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps?” as quoted by Eugene Koonin.

    Origin of Life based on materialist-only assumptions?

    Moshe Averick, quoting biochemist Klaus Dose, “Experimentation on the origin of life … has led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”

    As technology has advanced, the scope of the problem for Origin of Life grows larger, not easier for materialist-only solutions. Built on faulty assumptions like 98% JUNK DNA for example. Appealing to unguided, blind dogma does not help solve the problem if the functionality of the genome is growing. It appears to makes it worse.

    for readers who are lurking major Domain…
    Eukaryote

  15. 15
    DATCG says:

    es58,
    ha! I did not see your post. great point and one I covered as well on increasing complexity and specificity of functions. As technology advances, it uncovers more organization, orchestrated, coordinated and regulated as finely tuned entities working in unison either as builders, problem resolution, error checking and repair.

    But on a more serious note I noticed. The article you quote, states…

    He asked that his identity be kept in confidence — a fair request given that those who dislike his views have targeted him in the past. For scientists sympathetic to ID, it’s a familiar story.

    Why should this scientist have to worry at all about sharing his identity? He should be allowed to speculate as openly as materialist and atheist. Don’t know who he is. He may be agnostic himself.

    But no, instead, he’s worried for his career and livelihood.

    This is disgusting and precisely why so few scientist venture out to voice an opposing view. For fear of losing their jobs.

    25(correction) years as a biochemist and yet he cannot honestly speak? For fear of reprisals? Shame on the state of evolutionary biology today.

    The fact this scientist must protect himself shows it’s no longer about science. It’s about ideology and control. Thought control and fear.

    Scientist of all rank, position and leadership should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.

    There should be encouragement for open and robust discussion among scientist. Not fear of reprisals!

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    es58 @ 3

    If you’re referring to an Intelligent Designer or Creator how does that actually tell us anything about how it was done?
    I don’t know but it might tell us how it wasn’t done, by a series of random event events.

    If we found evidence that intelligent agency had been involved in the beginnings of life on Earth, that only tells us what might have happened in this case. It doesn’t tell us that it’s impossible for life to emerge through naturalistic causes. It doesn’t tell us anything about the origins of the Designer. Was he/she/it also designed, in which case are we looking at an infinite regress of designers, or are we looking at naturalistic origins here?

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    News@ 11

    Seversky at 2: In determining where to look for a solution, a good plan is to begin by ruling out what can’t possibly happen, rather than wasting resources on it. Especially don’t waste resources simply out of a sense of duty to the ideology that it must have happened that way

    In principle, I would agree but the problem is that it is very difficult to rule things out given the present state of our knowledge. ID proponents cannot absolutely rule out naturalistic explanations any more than I can absolutely rule out some alien super-intelligence or God.

    Where are we then? We study the system as if it were designed, to learn as much as we can of how and why it works the way it does

    I don’t see that assuming design helps much, if at all. The only design that we can recognize reliably is whatever looks enough like what we might design. But we have no reason to think that the creations of some unimaginably-advanced alien super-intelligence would look anything like what 21st century human beings would design.

  18. 18
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos @10,

    the accusation that I am a troll is not new. It is not that I am a troll, it is simply that every single argument raised on this site, every new ‘book’, every new proof of naturalism’s failure to answer complexity, every new post by NEWS, is smply not new.

    You find something you hav not described in nature, or in the human body, or in the cosmos, and say look, ‘design’.

    Scientists sigh, and say, ‘we don’t understand this yet, but please don’t jump to God!’

    I am not a troll, I am simply waiting for something, anything that actually points to design, that is not hearsay, incredulity, or God of the Gaps.

    I don’t stay on threads because they are peopled by the likes of Dionisio, or even yourself, with endless tedious predictable tirrades.

    TWSYF @12,

    my reason for coming to this site ever since Dover has never changed; I am watching a slow, evolving implosion. I may be banned, I don’t care, I will still visit.

    It is fascinating to observe the demise of a once very vocal and confident community, full of the huff and puff of a once reverred figure, Dembski, turn into the rants of the almost ureadable NEWS and Co.

    I don’t troll, I observe, and it is wonderfully satisfying to see science tiumph so infatically over woo.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, If you scroll up you will not find in 10 an empty accusation of trollishness. You will find a substantiated summary of a rhetorical pattern that makes for troubling reading given your personal narrative and things you claim to have done. I suggest to you, take time to ponder and begin to reflect on world roots i/l/o worldviews considerations. The current threads on Mathematics may help, as this subject is a very special and central case. I suggest, your Dover as decisive narrative is long past discard-by date. And, even trolls living under bridges are redeemable. KF

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, let me expand that:

    If you scroll up you will not find in 10 an empty accusation of trollishness. You will find a substantiated summary of a rhetorical pattern that makes for troubling reading given your personal narrative and things you claim to have done. I suggest to you, take time to ponder and begin to reflect on world roots i/l/o worldviews considerations. The current threads on Mathematics may help, as this subject is a very special and central case. I suggest, your Dover as decisive narrative is long past discard-by date. Also, that if you make a crooked yardstick your standard, that which is true and upright can never pass the test of such a warped standard, leading to rejecting the truth and right as seeming absurd. This is where plumblines come in as naturally true and plumb thus having potential to challenge warped yardsticks. Thus, the importance of self evident first principles of reason and other first truths, also willingness to re-assess i/l/o evident facts. One being, within 15 months, Dover was effectively dead, exposed in the wider context as ill advised and injudicious judgement based on using one side of a dispute as yardstick; especially the parts of the judgement that were 90+% verbatim from flawed, factually ill-founded advocacy of the ACLU and/or NCSE. Even, watching a misleading movie as preparation was a relevant factor, Inherit the Wind is Hollywood fantasy, not responsible history. And, even trolls living under bridges are redeemable.

    KF

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, I again point to the logic of inference to best, empirically and analytically warranted explanation. I suggest to you that you cannot answer to the search challenge faced by those who would suggest getting to FSCO/I by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Where, it is precisely to set aside empty speculation of the gaps that Newton advocated that a causal explanation of traces from what we did not directly observe should be based on the observed capability of candidate causes to create the like effect in our observation. There are trillions of cases of FSCO/I observed to come about by design. Nil, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. With the needle in haystack search challenge to back it up. Where, we are looking at alphabetic, textual strings that function algorithmically, at the heart of the living cell. The source we observe for such text is: ______ I suggest, reconsideration. KF

  22. 22
    es58 says:

    Seversky @17:

    You wrote:
    The only design that we can recognize reliably is whatever looks enough like what we might design. But we have no reason to think that the creations of some unimaginably-advanced alien super-intelligence would look anything like what 21st century human beings would design.

    If you haven’t see this, please take a look:

    http://www.bio-complexity.org/.....O-C.2014.3

    Systems Biology as research project for ID – D Snoke

    It looks quite a bit like 21st century human beings would do. Maybe engineering is engineering?

  23. 23
    es58 says:

    Seversky@16:

    You wrote:

    If we found evidence that intelligent agency had been involved in the beginnings of life on Earth, that only tells us what might have happened in this case. It doesn’t tell us that it’s impossible for life to emerge through naturalistic causes.

    And if we know humans made computers, sky scrapers, bridges, planes,… it doesn’t tell us that it’s impossible for them to emerge through naturalistic causes, but, please don’t suggest that my tax money be spent on research projects to find out. 🙂

  24. 24

    rvb8 @ 18: Surely you lie…or else you are a fool.

    The truth is opposite of everything you wrote. UD is a vibrant voice against the irrational and faith-based a/mat philosophical worldview. Like the growing ID movement that you despise, UD is alive, well, and thriving. Your comment about a “slow, evolving implosion” is pure self-deluded fantasy…just more a/mat wishful thinking.

    By the way, I hope you are never banned. You evidently are not capable of understanding that your continued contributions to these threads help keep UD alive, strong, and vibrant. Thank you. Keep coming, brother.

  25. 25

    we have no reason to think that the creations of some unimaginably-advanced alien super-intelligence would look anything like what 21st century human beings would design.

    Why not? They would be faced with the same physical conditions, same 100+ elements. same inexorable laws, and would have to accomplish the same tasks — I.e. specify objects from a medium of information and organize a functioning semantic closure.

  26. 26
    rvb8 says:

    TWSYF,

    glad to hear it. However my observation doesn’t really need much clarification; ID is tiny and shrinking.

    First, concerning the religious; the religious can be roughly grouped into three fractious parts: 1) Biblical literalists, Bible or Koran or whatever flavour you choose. Everything in the Book is true no need for science God’s said it all.
    2) The Biblical Evolutionists, or Old Earth Creationists, or those that accept science but see God as the author.
    3) Then finally we hve you lot the IDists, viewing God (the Designer), as an eternal ongoing tinkerer, never getting anything right and constantly meddling.

    Now group 1) hates group 2), calling them unChristian, and not accepting God’s word. Group 2) hates group 3), calling you unscientific, and accusing you of trying to mould nature to fit God. Group 1) also hates group 3), and group 3) views itself as progressive and scientific, while loathing group 2), but sympathetic to group 1), as they are largely the same.

    Also TWSYF,

    I don’t despise ID, but it is certainly not growing, outside the US it is next to non-existant, unless of course you want Turkey in your corner; hint, if you want to be accepted as legitimately scientific, Turkey’s probably not your best partner.

  27. 27

    rvb8 @ 26: I welcome Turkey to the intelligent design community. Also, don’t forget about the new Center on Intelligent Design at Brazil’s McKenzie University. This is evidence of growth, not “shrinking.”

    Also, take a look at the following list of ID (or ID friendly) books. It is only a partial list, yet it alone provides evidence undermining your “shrinking” hypothesis.

    Finally, my son recently graduated from college with a computer science degree. He is now working for a major software development company in California. His current book of interest during leisure time is Signature in the Cell, by Stephen Meyer, which he and his young friends regularly discuss and debate about. According to my son, lots of young people are interested in the ID debate because of what Meyer calls “the information enigma.”

    ID is not shrinking at all. It is growing!

    Here is the list of books mentioned above. It is only partial, of course, and does include any of the numerous documentary or debate videos supporting ID.

    1967 – Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinism (Wistar Institute)
    1981 – The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (A.E. Wilder-Smith)
    1984 – Darwin Was Wrong (I.L. Cohen)
    1984 – The Mystery of Life’s Origins (Charles Thaxton)
    1985 – Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Michael Denton)
    1989 – Of Pandas and People (Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon)
    1991 – Darwin on Trial (Phillip Johnson)
    1993 – The Creator and the Cosmos (Hugh Ross)
    1996 – Reason in the Balance (Phillip Johnson)
    1996 – Darwin’s Black Box (Michael Behe)
    1997 – A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Dean Overman)
    1998 – The Design Inference (William Dembski)
    1999 – Intelligent Design (William Dembski)
    2000 – Wedge of Truth (Phillip Johnson)
    2000 – Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)
    2001 – Darwin’s God (Cornelius Hunter)
    2001 – Evolution Under the Microscope (David Swift)
    2001 – No Free Lunch (William Dembski)
    2004 – The Privileged Planet (Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards)
    2004 – By Design or By Chance? (Denyse O’Leary)
    2004 – The Case for a Creator (Lee Strobel)
    2004 – What Darwin Didn’t Know (Geoffrey Simmons)
    2007 – The Spiritual Brain (Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary)
    2007 – Billions of Missing Links (Geoffrey Simmons)
    2008 – The Edge of Evolution (Michael Behe)
    2008 – There is a God (Antony Flew)
    2009 – Signature in the Cell (Stephen Meyer)
    2009 – The Devil’s Delusion (Dave Berlinski)
    2011 – The Myth of Junk DNA (Jonathan Wells)
    2013 – Darwin’s Doubt (Stephen Meyer)
    2014 – Why Science Does Not Disprove God (Amir Aczel)
    2016 – Undeniable (Douglas Axe)
    2016 – Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Michael Denton)
    2017 – Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)
    2017 – Darwin’s House of Cards (Tom Bethell)

  28. 28

    Quick correction to TWSYF @ 27: The book list does NOT include any of the numerous documentary or debate videos supporting ID.

  29. 29
    Dionisio says:

    KF @10:

    RVB8, Dionisio has a point, there is a growing list of discussion issues where you charged in, making various confident manner claims. Then, on closer examination and raising other sides to the story, poof, off to the next thread. There is a pattern of

    — selective hyperskepticism, too often

    — a seemingly starry-eyed scientism [where this view that Science monopolises serious knowledge is a philosophical claim and so undermines itself], and one of

    — refusal to deal with the point that every worldview faces significant difficulties and needs to stand in its own right i/l/o factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.

    All, needing to be informed by first principles of right reason.

    Well said. But the persons addressed don’t seem to understand it. The will to understand seems missing.
    Perhaps that’s one reason why that person and their comrades run for the door as soon as they face simple questions they don’t want to answer, thus revealing their true motives?

    What else is new? Same old, same old.

  30. 30
    Dionisio says:

    Truth Will Set You Free @27:

    Nice chronological compilation of ID (or ID friendly) books. Thanks!

    Would this 2008 book qualify as ID friendly?

    https://www.amazon.com/Cells-Design-Chemistry-Creators-Artistry/dp/0801068274/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500036007&sr=8-2&keywords=fazale+rana

    Thanks.

  31. 31
    Dionisio says:

    DATCG @14,

    Glad you look at the referenced papers and enjoy reading some of them. Please, write some comments in that thread too. Thanks.

  32. 32
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    your politely dissenting interlocutor wrote @18:

    I don’t stay on threads because they are peopled by the likes of Dionisio,…

    that gave me an idea: maybe I should try and get into any thread where those politely dissenting interlocutors and their comrades are so that they quickly run for the door?
    thus the administrator won’t have to ban them… they’ll ban themselves out… hmm… let’s think about it…
    🙂

  33. 33
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    your politely dissenting interlocutor wrote @18:

    I don’t stay on threads because they are peopled by the likes of Dionisio,…

    perhaps because Dionisio keeps asking annoying simple questions your politely dissenting interlocutors and their comrades don’t want to answer, because those simple questions keep unveiling (exposing) their real motives?

    🙂

  34. 34
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    your politely dissenting interlocutor wrote @18:

    I don’t stay on threads because they are peopled by the likes of Dionisio,…

    perhaps because Dionisio keeps asking annoying simple questions your politely dissenting interlocutors and their comrades don’t want to answer, because they don’t want to risk being embarrassed like the Canadian professor of the University of Toronto, who mistakenly answered ‘yes’ to a simple question that had only ‘no’ for obvious answer?
    Well, at least the Canadian professor came up with a persuasive explanation for his embarrassing mistake: Dionisio asked dishonest questions which had the tricky word ‘exactly’ embedded in the text in a subliminal manner (i.e. not bold text).

    🙂

  35. 35

    Dionisio @ 30: Absolutely! Fazale Rana has made significant contributions to the ID movement, including:

    2008 – The Cell’s Design (which you referenced)
    2011 – Creating Life in the Lab

    A complete list would be very long, of course, especially if we included all the documentaries in support of ID and the debate videos featuring ID advocates.

    ID is a strong and growing movement. It feels good to be a part of it.

  36. 36
    es58 says:

    Seversky @17

    Update of earlier post with more detail

    You wrote:
    The only design that we can recognize reliably is whatever looks enough like what we might design. But we have no reason to think that the creations of some unimaginably-advanced alien super-intelligence would look anything like what 21st century human beings would design.
    If you haven’t see this, please take a look. The entire paper directly addresses your statement.
    http://www.bio-complexity.org/…..O-C.2014.3
    Systems Biology as research project for ID – D Snoke
    It looks quite a bit like 21st century human beings would do. Maybe engineering is engineering?

    I’ll include a few quotes, but, again, the entire paper is relevant:
    The Revolution in Systems Biology In 2009, I attended the March Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) in Pittsburgh, the largest annual physics conference in the United States. At this meeting, there were at least ten two-hour sessions on systems biology. The excitement about systems biology at that meeting was palpable. Speaker after speaker talked about how this field was, for the first time in history, allowing quantitative, mathematical predictions for biophysics that were being confirmed regularly by experiments

    Biologists and biophysicists are now learning to think like engineers when approaching biological systems. An important distinction must be made here.

    It has become an extremely productive paradigm in biology to look for biological systems that exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems, i.e ones that resemble methods developed by human engineers over the past few hundred years to accomplish complicated tasks.

    Adaptation Perhaps the most sophisticated type of engineering is adaptive engineering (e.g. “smart materials”), in which a system is programmed to change its overall configuration in response to changes in the environment. This adaptive response may even extend to include processes long considered to be evolutionary processes. James Shapiro [52] of the University of Chicago, and Michael Deem of Rice University [53] have argued that much of the adaptation that we see in living systems today, such as bacterial immunity, is not due to random processes, but rather is due to very sophisticated problem-solving systems.

    Bottom line, the scientific community in Biology working on practical applications has adapted this approach of expecting to find “top down” design in biological systems. It appears they can recognize it sufficiently.

  37. 37
    es58 says:

    TWSYF@27 – consider “Not by Design” by Lee Spetner?

  38. 38
    rvb8 says:

    TWSYF @27,

    a trivial list of around 40 books since 1967, and an anecdote about your son, hmmmm, I see.

    Now try to google all the scientific publications, and popular publications concerning evolution from 1967 until 2017.

    See where I’m going with this? If not, try thinking really hard.

    Your son is most likely a very smart person, I have met many creationists I consider very smart on many subjects excluding biology; I don’t know why this mind block occurs.

    And once again, you consider the US to be representative of world opinion, it is not.

    Atheism is dominant in many European countries, churches are seen as beautiful historical museums, places to love, visit, and protect, but not to take seriously as having anything to offer human understanding; very wise.

    My own country NZ, has an ID community, but you would be hard pressed to know that; they are miniscule. My brother informs me from Brisbane in Oz, that his country is in a similar position. Apparently, in Oz, they are desperately trying to disown Ken Ham. (See, I have my own inconclusive annecdotes that prove nothing.)

    And once again, Turkey, and Brazil? Brazil is at present in poilitical meltdown, in a corruption scandal that makes Donald Trump look like a schoolgirl. As for Erdogan’s Turkey? Please, that man and his party are an embarassment to half his country, and recently, if you read the papers, the opposition to him and his ‘science denial’ has spiralled.

    40 books since 1967, your son, a nut job Turkey, and an imploding Brazil, do not a convincing argument make.

    Again, google the output of evolutionary biology since 1967, and it will amaze you. Unless of course you are amazed by 40 unpeer reviewed books, what your son is currently reading, and very poorly governed countries.

  39. 39

    es58 @ 37: Thanks for the Lee Spetner information. I was completely unaware of him. I will definitely check out the book you referenced. For those interested, check out the following Lee Spetner quote quickly lifted from Wikipedia.

    “We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. … Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”

    — Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp 131-138 (1996)

    rvb8 @ 38: Just one more book for you to consider. By the way, you know that a comprehensive list of books, documentaries, movies, debate videos, etc. would be much, much longer than my hastily assembled list. As for the story about my son, it was only meant to show that some young people (a lot, according to him) are impressed by the “information enigma” set forth in Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell, and are actively engaged in discussing ID in relation to Darwinian models. This is very good news for the ID community.

  40. 40

    rvb8 — in reference to the list at 27, I would be interested in which of these (or others not listed) you have read, and more importantly, pondered over?

    And here is another book, a short allegory, not scientific @
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/.....to-believe
    by A.E. wilder-Smith

  41. 41

    rvb8: How many “peer reviewed” books were contemporary or predecessors to:

    Newton
    Galileo
    Pasteur
    Copernicus
    Faraday
    Darwin
    Einstein
    Kepler

    > > >

Leave a Reply