Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski offers some thoughts on the current state of Christian apologetics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
William A. Dembski Biography, William A. Dembski's Famous Quotes - Sualci Quotes 2019
William Dembski

He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics

A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.

With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).

I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.

William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)

Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.

Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.

You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.

Comments
Origenes: I have noticed that you prefer to keep things vague. These are complicated and involved topics and I can't always remember precisely what I did or did not say so I equivocate. I take it you understand that we are not attempting to explain stillbirths, but rather building organs like the brain, which architecture Is Beyond Anything Imagined. Yes, I do understand. I was addressing your 'reliable' comment. And no, it is not a reliable system.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
JVL @
JVL: I’m not sure that is exactly what I said!!
I have noticed that you prefer to keep things vague.
JVL: I don’t think it is very efficient for sure. I guess that’s why between a quarter and a third of all human pregnancies end up as spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.
I take it you understand that we are not attempting to explain stillbirths, but rather building organs like the brain, which architecture Is Beyond Anything Imagined.Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Origenes: It is miraculous especially if one holds that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form. I'm not sure that is exactly what I said!! Many, many species share genes and control genes but each species has a unique . . . combination within the variations between individuals. Remember too that species are human constructs, lines of separation not dictated by nature. It's better to think about all life forms as sitting on the same, generic sliding n-dimensional scale. There are no 'islands of function' as Kairosfocus is fond of asserting. Proteins interact with each other and the environment. Ok. But how is that a reliable way to build a human being? I don't think it is very efficient for sure. I guess that's why between a quarter and a third of all human pregnancies end up as spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
JVL @114
O: (...) one individual organism who expresses radically different body plans at different stages of its life.
JVL: I guess a caterpillar and butterfly would be a good example of what you’re talking about.
Indeed.
JVL: I can’t address that particular example with any insightful knowledge or answers as I haven’t read any work relating to it. It does seem a bit miraculous.
It is miraculous especially if one holds that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form.
JVL: I could guess but I really don’t know. But not being able to explain a particular example doesn’t mean the general principle is wrong.
I disagree. One single particular example, like the caterpillar, suffices to refute the idea that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form. However, we do not have just one ‘particular example’, as Talbott wrote:
**Millions** of species consist of such improbably distinct creatures, organized in completely different ways at different stages of their life, yet carrying around the same genetic inheritance.
- - - -
JVL: Okay, some genes are activated to make/build certain proteins and those proteins interact with the ‘environment’ and change the chemical balance of that environment. And that change affects other control genes and tells them to turn on or turn off other genes. In that sense the proteins are the message. Their presence alone conveys ‘information’ about what is happening in the local vicinity.
Proteins interact with each other and the environment. Ok. But how is that a reliable way to build a human being?Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Origenes: True, but you missed my point. I am talking about one individual organism who expresses radically different body plans at different stages of its life. I guess a caterpillar and butterfly would be a good example of what you're talking about. I can't address that particular example with any insightful knowledge or answers as I haven't read any work relating to it. It does seem a bit miraculous. I could guess but I really don't know. But not being able to explain a particular example doesn't mean the general principle is wrong. Elaborate please. Explain how this makes sense. Okay, some genes are activated to make/build certain proteins and those proteins interact with the 'environment' and change the chemical balance of that environment. And that change affects other control genes and tells them to turn on or turn off other genes. In that sense the proteins are the message. Their presence alone conveys 'information' about what is happening in the local vicinity.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I am stymied by the copy of Dr Pattee's article Evolving Self-Reference: Matter, Symbols and Semiotic Closure not allowing me to copy-and-paste chunks of text. I understand why the .pdf is locked but it's making it very hard for me to show you parts of the text that I think support my interpretation of his work. I will try and find another more pliable copy of the paper; if you know of one please tell me. Anyway, I still think it's fair to propose a design inference hypothesis, which has been done. I just don't think that hypothesis has been substantiated.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
A few notes: "Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern."
What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen? - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: While there are many complex and diverse movements of mind as we speak, it is fair to say very generally that we first have an idea, inchoate though it may be, and then we seek to capture and clothe this idea in words. Each word gains its full meaning — becomes the word it now is — through the way it is conjoined with other words under the influence of the originating idea. The word simply didn't exist as this particular word before — as a word with these nuances of meaning. So an antecedent whole (an idea) becomes immanent in and thereby transforms and constitutes its parts (words), making them what they are. In terms of active agency, it is less that the parts constitute the whole than the other way around. http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ch03.htm#fn3.0 Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012 Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/epigenetics_and054731.html "Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information." Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/ The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings Darwinism vs Biological Form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
bornagain77
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
"Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great. Maybe a bit better than ‘blueprint’ though." JVL, Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great in the sense that it fails to represent reality. Andrewasauber
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
JVL= clueless .Lieutenant Commander Data
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
JVL @ 104
O: One problem with this is that sometimes the same DNA leads to radically different body plans. As Stephen L. Talbott has written: (…)
JVL: Many, many life forms share similar genes and genomic sequences. But not their complete genome.
True, but you missed my point. I am talking about one individual organism who expresses radically different body plans at different stages of its life. This refutes your idea that a particular set of DNA is linked to one particular form. For your convenience here is Talbott again:
Talbott: There are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA. Then there is the starfish: its bilaterally symmetric larva swims freely by means of cilia, after which it settles onto the ocean floor and metamorphoses into the familiar form of the adult. This adult, bearing the same DNA as the larva, exhibits an altogether different, radially symmetric (star-like) body plan. Millions of species consist of such improbably distinct creatures, organized in completely different ways at different stages of their life, yet carrying around the same genetic inheritance.
- - - -
O: You seem to think that this constitutes an explanation for development, but many of us would like to know where these proteins get their information from. Wouldn’t you like to know as well?
JVL: The proteins ARE the information!
Elaborate please. Explain how this makes sense.Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Jerry: But in gestation the two cells are attached to each other and then at some time it changes the cell type that is then attached in a specific way. After awhile these different cell types are intertwined with each other in extremely complicated ways. In a human there are several trillion all specifically and correctly placed. How does it know? When a cell reproduces its 'environment' (including other cells) provide feedback which affects the control genes which affect what proteins are synthesised which affect what kind of cell is 'made'. Another question is why there isn’t intense research on this and a corresponding body of literature documenting what is and isn’t known. I think there is and Dr Shubin discusses some cases in Some Assembly Required.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: You posted a quote about Howard Pattee’s support of evolutionary theory; a topic that is not even in contention. Pattee’s position is that Darwinian evolution cannot occur until an organization has symbolic control over its being at the origin of life. I'm not sure that is correct. I'm getting a bit busy at the moment so I shall return later (tonight or tomorrow) an attempt to address your points properly. But I will respond to the following, again: JVL, is there a valid scientific inference to design in biology? I think there is a design hypothesis but I don't think it's been validated.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
WJM: Would your position be that there a particular set of objects, physio-chemically arranged by physio-chemical laws/forces in a particular way and part of a finite set of interacting, physical commodities, that are directly responsible and necessary for the successful construction of a functioning human body? Um . . . that makes it sound purely deterministic and I think there is a lot of noise in the system. And a lot of minor factors whose effects are not yet understood. Like I said: even 'identical' twins are not identical. But they are very, very close because they share the same genome. At first anyway. And, some of those things are, in some significant ways, different from comparable physio-chemical objects in other species? Different species have different genomes and diets and living conditions, etc, etc, etc.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
ET: It does exist and it is required. So far no one has found it. And cells have been pretty thoroughly explored now. Too bad neither of them has any evidence to support their claims. That is not true. As I said Dr Dawkins and Dr Shubin present a lot of evidence showing there is no hidden programming or information.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Origenes: One problem with this is that sometimes the same DNA leads to radically different body plans. As Stephen L. Talbott has written: Many, many life forms share similar genes and genomic sequences. But not their complete genome. You seem to think that this constitutes an explanation for development, but many of us would like to know where these proteins get their information from. Wouldn’t you like to know as well? The proteins ARE the information! During development the same control genes convey different messages at different times. So, the same question applies: where does the information for the control genes come from? No, the control genes do not convey different messages; they turn genes off and on.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Asauber: They also require forms that the ingredients or steps in the recipe can’t produce. Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great. Maybe a bit better than 'blueprint' though.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
What causes cell replication? And why are the two cells identical? Including the zillions of different molecules embedded in the cell membrane as well as the zillions of molecules in the cytoplasm and nucleus. After division the two cells go merrily on their way as if nothing has happened. But in gestation the two cells are attached to each other and then at some time it changes the cell type that is then attached in a specific way. After awhile these different cell types are intertwined with each other in extremely complicated ways. In a human there are several trillion all specifically and correctly placed. How does it know? Answer - no one knows and anyone who thinks they do is conning you. Another question is why there isn’t intense research on this and a corresponding body of literature documenting what is and isn’t known.jerry
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
.
No comment about the paper I linked to then?
You posted a quote about Howard Pattee’s support of evolutionary theory; a topic that is not even in contention. Pattee’s position is that Darwinian evolution cannot occur until an organization has symbolic control over its being at the origin of life. In contrast, the topic of this conversation is about the unique physical conditions that Pattee has documented as necessary to achieve that symbolic control. So yes, contrary to your assertion, I did make a comment: ”His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life.” There isn’t a passage in any of Pattee’s entire published record where he suggests that Darwinian evolution gave rise to the symbol system required to achieve that control. This is not a subtle point JVL, if you open his book to page 3 of the Introduction, he tells you that language is the necessary condition of taking control; language is the necessary condition of biological evolution. So, is there anything else you’d like me to say about it? If not, then stop suggesting that I have not responded, and stop using irrelevant topics as a strategy to avoid the actual issues at hand. As a further example, you continue to press the idea that Howard Pattee offers some sort of substantive conclusions in his research papers as to the origin of symbolic control. In response, I have told you repeatedly that he does not do that, and I have told you why he doesn’t do it. Yet you continue to say he does. I am wondering if you actually read the paper you cited? In that paper he states unambiguously: “ The origin of life requires understanding the origin of symbolic control and how inanimate molecules becomes a message. I cannot solve this problem, but I discuss the necessary physical conditions that would allow evolvable symbolic control of matter to exist.” Just what do you think he means by “I cannot solve this problem”, JVL? These are in fact the same comments he makes throughout his career. I believe it means that Howard Pattee does not offer any conclusions in his papers as to the origin of symbolic control. Why do I believe that? Because he says so.
Are we finished then with whether or not the semiotics community supports intelligent design?
Not if you continue to use it as a means to say that the design inference is invalid. That is not how science and logic work. It is a logical fallacy to do so. Moreover, you already know it is a logical fallacy. Without any prompting, you are documented on these pages making the clear distinction between a researcher’s personal worldview and their actual science. For you, it is the science that is of importance. But now, faced with a researcher’s science that does not comport to your liking, you want to suddenly do away with that distinction. It is ad hoc. It is a fallacy. And you know it.
I would consider the design inference to be a hypothesis that has not been established.
In 1948, John Von Neumann gave a series of lectures where he used Alan Turing’s 1933 machine to predict the necessary logical conditions required for autonomous open-ended self-replication. The prediction required two sets of objects: a sequence of symbols and a set of encoded constraints that would establish what the symbols represented within the system. This arrangement would enable the use of machine language to specify a system of construction, copying, and control. In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the necessary sequence structure of Von Neumann’s prediction, using an image (Image #51) produced by Rosalind Franklin. Later, working with Sydney Brenner in 1955, Crick predicted that a second set of objects (a set of 20 proteins) would be found working in the system, and it would be the job of this second set of objects to establish what the genetic symbols were to represent within the system. That second set of objects (aaRS) were discovered in 1956-58 by Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoaglon, not only confirming Crick’s “adapter hypothesis”, but also Von Neumann’s prediction that the association between symbol and referent would be established by an encoded “quiescent” description. Then in 1961, Crick and Brenner demonstrated that the genetic symbol (the codon) was indeed three bases in length, and later that same year Marshall Nirenberg established the first symbolic relationship within the gene, setting off a race to decipher the entire Genetic Code, which was completed in 1966. This represents a complete confirmation of Von Neumann’s prediction, and has been widely-acknowledged. As a later extension of that confirmation, the genetic symbol system was described using the language of physics by Howard Pattee as a system of “rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process”, establishing the necessary “epistemic cut” (Von Neumann), and requiring “semiotic closure” in order to function. The design inference is a matter of historical record. The use of symbolic language is a universal correlate of intelligence. The design inference can be falsified by a demonstration that rate-independent symbolic language can rise from rate-dependent dynamics, thus eliminating the universal correlate. No one on earth is anywhere close to that demonstration. Indeed, as a show of just how intractable that demonstration is, it is a fact that the most prominent Origin of Life researchers in the field do not even discuss it in their research. JVL, is there a valid scientific inference to design in biology? ** as before JVL, this is not a question about your worldview, it is a question about physical evidence and logical continuity.Upright BiPed
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
JVL said:
No, there is no set of instructions anywhere.
and
Because of the combination of genes and control genes.
and:
It doesn’t exist. It’s not required.
Let me see if I can break through what appears to be a semantic barrier this way: So, I'm asking what causes the human body to be generated? Your answer would appear to be, roughly speaking, genes, control genes, and physics. By "gene" I'm assuming you mean a chemically bonded molecules that react with other molecules in a manner generated entirely by the physics/chemistry involved at each relevant juncture/level. From your responses, you apparently hold that genes and control genes (and perhaps other biological entities present and involved) are necessary to produce the human (or any other species) body; IOW, that it would not occur otherwise. So, let me arrange my question a different way - and, BTW, thanks for this discussion, this is fascinating to me. Very enjoyable. Would your position be that there a particular set of objects, physio-chemically arranged by physio-chemical laws/forces in a particular way and part of a finite set of interacting, physical commodities, that are directly responsible and necessary for the successful construction of a functioning human body? And, some of those things are, in some significant ways, different from comparable physio-chemical objects in other species?William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Neither Dawkins nor Shubin have any idea what determines biological form. Both of them NEED it to be materialistic in nature. Too bad neither of them has any evidence to support their claims. So why does JVL believe them? Because he is hopefully gullible.ET
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
JVL:
No, there is no set of instructions anywhere.
Complete nonsense. There has to be as William explained.
Because of the combination of genes and control genes.
That has already been refuted.
It doesn’t exist. It’s not required.
It does exist and it is required.ET
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
JVL @95
O: are you saying that genes do not need guidance (body plan information), other than the laws of physics, because by their chemical composition they can (under normal circumstances) only end up in one single adult shape?
JVL: Hmm (...). . . yeah, something like that.
One problem with this is that sometimes the same DNA leads to radically different body plans. As Stephen L. Talbott has written:
There are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA. Then there is the starfish: its bilaterally symmetric larva swims freely by means of cilia, after which it settles onto the ocean floor and metamorphoses into the familiar form of the adult. This adult, bearing the same DNA as the larva, exhibits an altogether different, radially symmetric (star-like) body plan. Millions of species consist of such improbably distinct creatures, organized in completely different ways at different stages of their life, yet carrying around the same genetic inheritance.
- - - - You speak highly of the explanation given by Shubin, according to Shubin proteins are orchestrating development:
Shubin: Finally, cells in bodies need ways to communicate with one another, to coordinate their reproduction, death, and gene activity. And again, proteins are the way this happens: different proteins convey messages to cells that tell them where and when to divide, die, or secrete more proteins.
You seem to think that this constitutes an explanation for development, but many of us would like to know where these proteins get their information from. Wouldn’t you like to know as well?
JVL: That’s why the control genes are so important. If most living creatures have access to the same basic building blocks then the control genes determine when and how much of the basic ingredients are used. And that changes what kind of cell you get.
During development the same control genes convey different messages at different times. So, the same question applies: where does the information for the control genes come from?Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
JVL, "Most breads and cakes have much the same basic ingredients and steps to make them. " They also require forms that the ingredients or steps in the recipe can't produce. For instance, a lemon bundt cake requires a bundt pan or there will never be a bundt cake. The concept of bundt precedes everything else. Andrewasauber
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Origenes: To be clear JVL, are you saying that genes do not need guidance (body plan information), other than the laws of physics, because by their chemical composition they can (under normal circumstances) only end up in one single adult shape? Put another way, according to you, a particular set of DNA & the laws of physics combined produce one particular outcome? Hmm . . . I'm inclined to say: something like that even though you've removed a lot of the finer details and added some qualifiers but . . . yeah, something like that. Remember there is noise in the system which is why even identical twins are really identical. So, it's not like a computer program which really should give the same result given the same input every time (unless some kind of randomness is part of the program of course). Again, there is no body plan information in cells. Nothing that needs to be read or consulted to say: oh, look, it's building muscle time or whatever. As previously mentioned Dr Dawkins gives a pretty good introduction to the idea in his book The Greatest Show on Earth and Dr Shubin discusses some very illustrative examples from the last couple of centuries in Some Assembly Required. I particularly recommend Some Assembly Required as it's easy to read, very up-to-date in some of the examples and makes the general case very well. The metaphor of it being more like a recipe than a blueprint is a bit . . . incomplete but it does help make part of the process easier to understand: Most breads and cakes have much the same basic ingredients and steps to make them. Sometimes the difference is only one ingredient or the amounts of ingredients or the method of cooking. That's why the control genes are so important. If most living creatures have access to the same basic building blocks then the control genes determine when and how much of the basic ingredients are used. And that changes what kind of cell you get. But, unlike a recipe, the 'plan' is not written down somewhere so the metaphor is not really strong.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
WJM: I’m not asserting here that the “plan” is intelligently designed. From what you said above, there is chemically encoded information contained in the biological entities that represents “the successful building of a human body” that, through a process of chemical signals activated by conception builds a particular body. There may be some random influences or errors in the process, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a set of instructions somewhere, or in several somewheres, that contain the information/instructions to produce a particular kind of body. No, there is no set of instructions anywhere. I don’t see why we would expect the process to produce the same kind of body over and over and over successfully in each species. Because of the combination of genes and control genes. However it is encoded, wherever it resides, even in multiple locations; without a detailed set of instructions that represent how to build a human, no human could be built by any process. Whether or not that set of detailed instructions accumulated or evolved over time by non-intelligent processes is irrelevant; that set of instructions, or blueprint, must exist somewhere. It doesn't exist. It's not required. But, if you think it must exist then have a look for it!JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
William Briggs's new book is out today.
Free First Chapter in Everything You Believe Is Wrong, The Book All Woke Fear
One prescient remark
It is meant for those who still hear the echoes of Reality and long to return, but do not know how. It is for giving to the less fanatical young woke, or aged old-school progressive, to provide them with unanswerable arguments in favor of Reality. This may not, and likely will not, convert many. But it will give some pause, and create in them a hesitation to engage in battles against Reality. Sometimes in War, that little edge is all that is needed.
Battles against reality are constantly fought here at UD. For example, just look at the nonsense that is spouted on this thread by some. https://wmbriggs.com/post/38264/jerry
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
JVL @
JVL: There is no blueprint. Genes are turned on and off by control genes responding to the conditions they are in.
To be clear JVL, are you saying that genes do not need guidance (body plan information), other than the laws of physics, because by their chemical composition they can (under normal circumstances) only end up in one single adult shape? Put another way, according to you, a particular set of DNA & the laws of physics combined produce one particular outcome? ---- Joe Schooner @76 You're welcome.Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
ET asks:
Wow. That doesn’t follow. How am I impatient for pointing out facts?
Because those fact are irrelevant to the discussion I'm having with JVL. Just wait for the discussion to develop. It's logical and conceptual in nature. Where the blueprint is stored, how it is stored, is irrelevant.William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
JVL on Howard Pattee:
He thinks natural processes are up to the task.
And yet neither he nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate such a thing. That alone speaks volumes. But there is more: neither he nor anyone else knows how to test the claim that nature did it! So, the claim is not a scientific claim and can be dismissed out of hand.ET
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
William J Murray:
You guys are so impatient. You’re jumping the shark.
Wow. That doesn't follow. How am I impatient for pointing out facts? How am I jumping the shark for pointing out facts? Anyone who understands DNA knows that DNA does not determine biological form. Jonathan Wells has been writing about just that for decades. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote a book about it, almost 2 decades ago.ET
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply