But available for a mere $4.99.
3 Likes
Yes, since the cell has several mechanisms to turn the expected distributions from molecules due to thermodynamics in its favor. The molecules don’t have to be carefully picked since you will have a expected abundancy of each type due to osmosis, charge movement, active transport and others, which will more or less correspond to the average expected distribution of molecules in a given scenario. Even radical ID proponents grant that, although they think that the mechanisms themselves had to be built by a superior inteligence. In fact, I even know researchers who do computational simulations of biological systems and they don’t need anything more than a bunch of molecules behaving according to the laws of physics for their models to reproduce the expected outcomes from biological systems, there is no need for any additional, rational force on that.
1 Like
“You have thus far only presented strings of scientific buzz words, e.g. nucleus, nuclear membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, nucleolus, RNA, DNA, chromosomes, ribosomes, proteins, vacuole, cytoplasm, protoplasm, golgi, lysosomes. Also, there are strange phrases like science agreeables, whatever that is, and stuff that is just plain wrong. I hope you aren’t trying to take credit for what credentialed scientists have already done, doing the hard work of original research and publishing in scientific journals.”
We have quoted many scholars and have given each one their due credit. We are hoping that our work will help to bring due credit to our Creator also.
The “Science Agreeables” sheet lists a number of what we consider to be irrefutable points of science that all honest scientists should be able to agree upon. This is another step towards uniting Christians-in-science groups to develop one agreed upon Godly science to replace Darwinisms as the taught cause of life.
It is about “Bringing the God of our nations back to our students with a new basic science” as our subtitle says.
Maybe that science will be atomic biology or something similar, but it has to be logical, verifiable, and a well reasoned “Best explanation” for the true cause of life.
A key point we have not discussed is that the atoms we are made of have no life of their own, therefore that has to be added to our new cells once their construction is completed.
I believe that few of us realize how much we are cared for.
I also believe that our Creator, sustainer, and maintainer, could be hurt, disappointed, and maybe even angry when the credit for all this work and care goes to another.
He is very patient up to a point, and He is a jealous God, according to His Word.
The parts of the various groups’ understanding that cannot be agreed upon will have to be left out, thus leaving us with a new science that we can all agree upon to present to education leaders.
If we cannot honestly determine and agree on what is essential to build living cell-parts, cells, and entities, then we may never replace Godless evolution as the taught cause of life.
Our students and scientists will be handicapped by not having accurate information to work with.
I agree, Ronald.
Since Madelyn Murray (O’Hair) and atheist friends managed to persuade the US Supreme Court to ban the Lord’s Prayer from classrooms in 1963, coincidentally, the numbers of teen pregnancies, single parent families, depression cases, alcoholism, drug addictions, STDs, and young suicides have all steadily increased.
All coincidence?
We have been warned in His Word that the great tribulation is coming. It seems to be accelerating on its way here, and we are just trying to slow it down a little, and maybe help a few more souls to “See the Light.”
As my co-author, Dr. G. McLennan, says, “Students already have the inalienable right to be taught Why God is a highly recognized part of Their Government.”
We have 4 chapters regarding God’s role in the governments of the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada.
We also have a chapter regarding why “Some persons dislike their concept of God.”
You don’t help anybody see the light by asserting things which are false, obvious or not. Your ‘God micromanages at the atomic level’ is a at best a distraction and at worst a barrier for somebody coming to belief. Hindering someone from coming to belief is to cause them to sin and Jesus had strong words for this in Mathew 18:3
This is not an abstract point. In grad school I had a roommate who had been courted by Mormons in his undergraduate days… At the time (at least) they officially denied evolution and asserted all fossils were fakes for reasons I do not remember. My roommate rejected them on the grounds that if they lied or were self deceived on this then about what else were they lying or self deceived? He went on to become a Christian taking evolution as a problem to be solved as he matured in the faith.
Learn from the Biologos material; and also go to www.asa3.org for even more breadth.
1 Like
This is a strawman argument. There’s no one arguing in this thread for what you’re trying to refute. You’ve created a false dichotomy between evolutionary processes and God’s creative activity.
2 Likes
So, Jason, for clarification, what I am refuting is the Darwinian concept that there is no intelligence required to construct any cell-parts, cells, or living entities.
I am trying to explain that it is now proven, especially with the added help of the three 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry, that Super-intelligence (far beyond that of mankind) is essential to construct cell-parts for creating living entities using the counted right numbers of the right atoms for every tiny part, plus adding that divine “breath-of-life” essential to activate the inanimate atoms assembled into complete new cells. When that is removed, the cell dies even though every atom is still in precisely the right place.
Most responders have not picked up on this connection yet.
I have also tried to explain why the “evolutionary processes” or “natural mechanisms” concept opens up more huge problems for evolution because now we know that these mechanisms would have to be built smarter, better equipped, and much faster than the Nobel Prize Chemists.
I understand that after three generations of teaching that no intelligence is needed to build any living thing or cause life, that a change of understanding can take a while.
One observer said words to the effect that, Science changes very slowly, often one funeral at a time, until the younger scientists pick up on the new evidence and accelerate the change .
But even Darwin in “Origins” said, “…the works of the Creator are (superior) to those of man.”
When you paid BioLogos a visit 2 years ago, Swamidass, in this post, remarked that you might be preaching vitalism.
I agree with you that scientific evidence can a provide powerful arguments for design. But it is a God-of-the-gaps argument that gaps in scientific knowledge equate to scientific proof of design. In the history of science, this approach has consistently failed as gaps in knowledge have been filled by scientific discoveries. Also, you’re making a false dichotomy between biological evolutionary processes and design. In my EC view, I affirm both of these realities but would say science by definition cannot answer ultimate questions of meaning such as design.
1 Like
Where is the proof? Is it in any peer reviewed journal? How do these Nobel prize winners fit into the argument?
Is your so called proof anything more than an improbability argument?.
Hi Jason:
Atomic Biology goes far beyond just Intelligent Design to study the Super-Intelligent Physical Works with Atoms to construct cell-parts, cells, and living entities including us.
We are studying all of these physical works that have to be performed at each cell construction site, in sequence, with precision and speed, all far greater than the capabilities of mankind even with our vast scientific knowledge and sophisticated equipment.
We work at determining and describing all the multitudes of decisions, choices, and precision assembly works in an understandable, logical, and verifiable manner.
This has generated new concepts that are different than current textbook explanations, but the goal is to determine accuracy regarding what is essential to build cell-parts, cells, and living entities.
We want the best, most verifiable explanation for the true cause of of life.
And because we believe that it is now proven that Super-Intelligence is essential and we only know of one source of this, our Creator God gets the credit for causing life.
Even Darwin said in “Origins” that “…the works of the Creator are (superior) to those of man.”
He also outlined how his theory “…could absolutely break down.”
Hi Ronald:
If you Google the 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry you will read how Sauvage, Stoddart, and Feringa developed over about 33 years, a few very simplistic molecular machines, These tiny units are almost infinitely more simplistic than the simplest molecular machine built for any of our cells every day of the week.
So, this is the best they could do with all their knowledge, intelligence, and sophisticated equipment, and over a 33 year period.
This Proves that mankind does not have anywhere near enough intelligence and skills to build any molecular machine for a cell, let alone being able to add the essential Breath-of-life to the inanimate atoms…
Therefore, this Proves that it takes Super-Intelligence (far superior to that of mankind) to build the various molecular machines for our cells.
Then why would we expect that any unintelligent and unguided process could do this essential brilliant work with atoms?
One really has to think through and understand the verifiable details of what has to happen at a cell-construction site.
It has taken us about 20 years part-time and 11 years full time to research and develop atomic biology to this stage, and we have had some great input from 20 PhDs, 3 MDs, 9 DScs, 3 Mathematicians, 2 MScs, and 8 independent researchers.
Regarding peer reviews, our latest book, “Darwin’s Replacement”, has attained positive reviews from six PhDs plus we have a growing number of positive responses to our “Science Agreeables” sheets on our websites.
There are two questions which are you are rolling into one.
In the first how does life replicate?
In the second, how did life arise in the first place?
For the first, each cell contains the instruction set to replicate itself. It does not take intelligence to do so, instead it takes a set of instructions and a mechanism to carry out that set of instructions. This process is done in a low entropic state which is made possible by energy obtained from outside the organism which ultimately comes from the sun. The instruction set and parts of the mechanism have been identified; it is called DNA and RNA. Indeed, if God were so engaged as you postulate in making and maintaining cells, DNA and RNA would not be necessary
The second question is more difficult. There is ample evidence of multicell organism evolution in the fossil record. Single cell development is more questionable. The Lenski experiment shows single cell evolution in the present era. I am told (by Denis Lamoureaux in front of 50+ scientists [Christians], this was a response to a question ,not part of his talk) that nobody has a good theory of abriogenesis. By ‘good theory’ I take it to mean data based. The data most likely simply has vanished in the billions of years.
Whatever you say about abriogenesis is almost irrelevant, your assertions fail in the here and now.
Does your so called atomic biology have any predicive power?
This perfectly illustrates why we need organizations like the National Center for Science Education. We must ensure that only science is taught in the science classroom.
1 Like
I totally agree, Beaglelady. This is plain common sense that we should teach true, logical, and verifiable science, always following where the evidence leads, and without reprisal. No firing of professors who find new scientific evidence, even if some other scientists don’t like it, because that is anti-science.
Does this also hold for God-honoring, consensus scientists teaching at Evangelical colleges and universities? Should they be protected from being fired for doing good science, even if some other folks in the (Christian) academy (and its administration and donor base) don’t like it?
I agree, anything less would be anti-science!
Yes, atomic biology does have extensive predic(t)ive powers:
Because of the phenomenally reliable physical works of the Creator, atomic biology predicts that we will always be given carrots when carrot seeds are properly planted, potatoes when potato seeds are properly planted, roses when rose seeds are properly planted, humans when human seeds are properly planted, etc., etc., etc.
I fear that the parties agreeing about protection disagree about what is good science.
Yes, I too agree that nobody should be fired for doing good science in any institution where pure science is pursued.
I assert that any result based solely on improbability arguments, lack of a better theory or ‘we can’t conceive of . . .’ style arguments are bad science.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.