ID Censors Their Own

Hi Eddie,

When I was an ID supporter I included lectures about it, and why evolution was wrong, in my classes at TWU. Those early students of mine would certainly recall me being pro ID. I also would invite our local ID chemist, Dr. Paul Brown, to my classes to lecture on ID as a more qualified expert in it. Paul is a “part of the ID movement” and he has a memory of these events. I certainly was not a well-known ID supporter - indeed, even Paul himself is not very well known, though he has become more so since co-editing a pro-ID book that includes chapters from folks like Fuz Rana and Casey Luksin. Just because one cannot find it online doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

3 Likes

Joe, it would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote. My point was that the original metaphor was motors. Ratchets are not motors.

You’re not engaging. You can’t engage in any discussion of evidence unless you understand that ribozymes are enzymes but are not proteins.

1 Like

Yes, because it makes testable empirical predictions that have been tested. Have you looked at any of the evidence?

1 Like

I never said they were proteins. Here’s the truth Ben: much (not all) of what you said in our last exchange is tecchnically correct, and with the exception of misspelling ribosome, what I said is also technically correct, yet nothing of what either of us has said has gotten anyone anywhere. If our conversation is to bear any fruit at all, a massive infusion of charity will be necessary. Therefore I propose that we move forward in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, endeavoring (and contending!) to reach a conclusion on what is reasonable to believe concerning God’s Creation of life. In that spirit, let me begin to address:[quote=“benkirk, post:73, topic:5625”]
So again, as the most reasonable causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life, what specific evidence do you cite?

I can’t answer for Swamidass, but as the most reasonable explanation for an “RNA World” that preceded modern life, I cite the evidence that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme.
[/quote]

I am really not sure what you mean when you say that peptidyl transfrease is a ribozyme. I think it is more accurate to say that a ribozyme is peptidyl transferase, but perhaps we are splittling hairs. At any rate, however we wish to say it, as far as we know, both occur only in living systems. therefore, I would be interested to hear your defense as to why this phenomenon constitutes a causal explanation for the origin of life?

1 Like

I said it was a ribozyme, and you said no.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:89, topic:5625”]
Here’s the truth Ben: much (not all) of what you said in our last exchange is tecchnically correct, and with the exception of misspelling ribosome, what I said is also technically correct, yet nothing of what either of us has said has gotten anyone anywhere.
[/quote]No, your disagreement with my pointing out that the peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme is not correct at all. It’s dead wrong. [quote=“deliberateresult, post:89, topic:5625”]
If our conversation is to bear any fruit at all, a massive infusion of charity will be necessary. Therefore I propose that we move forward in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, endeavoring (and contending!) to reach a conclusion on what is reasonable to believe concerning God’s Creation of life.
[/quote]Well, I suggest you start by supporting and clarifying your claim that your position is based on evidence.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:89, topic:5625”]
I am really not sure what you mean when you say that peptidyl transfrease is a ribozyme.[/quote]
Then why did you disagree with it?

[quote]I think it is more accurate to say that a ribozyme is peptidyl transferase, but perhaps we are splittling hairs.
[/quote]
No, that’s dead wrong too, as there are many other ribozymes that are not peptidyl transferase.

2 Likes

Yeah, I have Ben.

First, let us clarify that predictions are not empirical. This is why they need to be tested!

Next, let us agree that all scientific testing is designed to either strengthen or falsify hypotheses or theories born of repeated observations.

The ID hypothesis states that life requires a Creator. The abiogenesis hypothesis claims that life has emerged from non-life.

Now, let us evaluate the repeated observations we can make concerning living organisms and then let us turn to what we have learned from OOL tests to date:

  1. As far as I know, all OOL tests have been an attempt to demonstrate that life can arise from non-life. What observations inspire these tests? I have no clue. Perhaps you can help me here. One observation concerning life that is repeatedly confirmed and never contradicted is that life always comes from life. Always. Another observation of life, made possible by Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis - the most useful hypothesis to date in unlocking the mysteries of the genome to the extent we have been able to understand them to this point - is that all life requires genetic information (which is functional prescriptive information), and that information of this sort always originates from a mind.

  2. OOL testing then, can be viewed as an attempt to either confirm the hypothesis (which really is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion- scientifically speaking - as far as I can tell) that life has emerged from non-life or as a falsification of the repeatedly observed and never contradicted observation that life always comes from life.

  3. The closer we examine OOL tests or experiments, the more we confirm that the unsubstantiated opinion that life has emerged from non-life does not make for even a good hypothesis, let alone a good theory.

  4. The extent of any success that can be claimed in any OOL study is roughly equal to the amount of intelligent design required to achieve that success.

  5. Therefore, the data that has emerged from all OOL experiments consistently suggests that in order to achieve a result of life from non-life, massive amounts of intelligent agency are required.

  6. As these results, which inevitably confirm the need for intelligent agency, fail to falsify the observation that life always proceeds from life, and fail to support in any substantive way the opinion that life has emerged from non-life, continue to point unambiguously in the same direction…

6a. Therefore, when we consider the entire body of work from OOL experiments, the consistent signal we receive not only strengthens the observation that life always comes from non-life, it also confirms the design hypothesis and never lends any support whatsoever to the abiogenesis opinion.

All of this is to point out that ID is an OOL science. If OOL research can properly be considered science, as you affirm it can, then ID is in fact science by your definition (“empirical testing of hypotheses”). Every OOL experiment then, can be honestly viewed either as a (failed) attempt to falsify the design hypothesis, or a failed attempt to confirm the abiogenesis opinion. Take your pick.

1 Like

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:91, topic:5625”]
Yeah, I have [looked at the evidence] Ben. [/quote]
Great. How much and which evidence? Have you ever examined the sequence evidence, for example?

You’re not making sense. I don’t think you understand what “empirical” means. Scientific hypotheses predict what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it after we make the observation.

[quote]Next, let us agree that all scientific testing is designed to either strengthen or falsify hypotheses or theories born of repeated observations.
[/quote]No, I do not agree. I can (and have) tested hypotheses that are definitely not born of repeated observations. That’s how we start.

The rest of your comment is based on your false assumptions about the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method.

2 Likes

Wow Ben! So much for Christian charity. What I said was peptidyl tranferase is an enzyme that functions in the ribizome. You agreed. So to echo your own words:

If and when that time comes, I will be happy to rejoin the conversation

No, Joe, here is the exchange:

Joe, all ribozymes are enzymes, but not all enzymes are not ribozymes. Most are proteins. So if I say that PT is a ribozyme (a type of enzyme) and you say no, the only rational interpretation of your “no” is that you are claiming that PT is a protein.[quote=“deliberateresult, post:93, topic:5625”]
If and when that time comes, I will be happy to rejoin the conversation
[/quote]
I don’t see that you ever joined it!

1 Like

That’s nothing but an interpretation on your part. My “no” referenced what you said, but in whole, not in part: No, peptidyl transferase is not an explanation for an RNA world that preceded modern life; it is an enzyme which functions in the ribosome.

I said it Ben and I meant it: if you and I both do not begin to inject some charity in this conversation, it will go nowhere. I wish I could be better at carrying the ball for both of us, but you make it completely impossible.

You and I continue to talk past one another. I wish you the best

I didn’t come anywhere near saying that PT is an explanation for an RNA World, Joe.

2 Likes

OK. Then what did you mean by this:

It’s just one of many pieces of evidence, but the strongest one. Therefore it’s just the beginning of an explanation and dialog.

So shall we begin by discussing this evidence, and how you analyzed the evidence to come up with your “no”?

2 Likes

Hey @deliberateresult, sorry to let this dangle. Thought I would pick it up again. Let us find that point of agreement.

Both. All of it requires tuning of some sort (whether it is tuned by the multiverse that God creates, or by His direct intelligent effort). If there are no atoms and we are just a pool of energy, then no biological evolution is possible. So tuning is required.

Moreover, I do not deny God’s direct action in biological evolution. I just (correctly) assert that mainstream science does not detect His direct action in the natural world.

2 Likes