My ID Challenge

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Eddie

I thought you were making a similar leap. I apologize for raising a false alarm.

No problem. They are indeed very different cases.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@harry1

If God creates everything, why does anyone see there is a conflict between science and Bible? Hasn’t God created Newton, Darwin, Eisenstein, Physics, Evolution, Biology, etc.? Whatever happened in the past was willed by God; whatever is happening is willed by God; and whatever will happen will be willed by God. If you believe that God is the Creator, the answer to every question is already there

Harry: I don’t think anyone here sees a conflict between science and God. Nor would any argue that God is not the Creator. My point from the beginning has been that God’s Creation of life bears evidence of His work, which is consistent with Scriptures (Romans 1:19,20 and elsewhere). When Christians steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the Creator manifested in the creation, or when they imply that such knowledge is merely personal or private, or cannot be established by science, logic, or reason, and especially when they teach such things, they, in my humble opinion, do damage to the faith of others. I do not claim that God’s existence can be “proven” by the evidence. I do claim that the evidence exists and that it is strong.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@glipsnort

I was hoping that at some point @deliberateresult would defend his claim in this thread that “every single time we trace functional prescriptive information to its source, that source is always an intelligent agent, and never natural processes,” since it seems to me obviously false. But I haven’t such a defense.

I have made a specific, audacious claim. If it seems obviously false, all you need do is provide one empirical example of functional prescriptive information being traced to a source that is not intelligent agency.

Here is a condensed version of the definition of Prescriptive information (from the peer reviewed anthology, “The First Gene,”): “A subset of functional information that either instructs or indirectly produces nontrivial formal function. Presicriptive Information (PI) is semantic “how to” information. PI provides the instructions required to organize and program sophisticated utility…PI requires anticipation and “choice with intent” at bona fide decision nodes. PI either tells us what choices to make, or is a recordation of wise choices already made. PI is positive, as opposed to negative uncertainty…PI provides the instructions required to organize and program sophisticated utility. PI designs, creates, engineers, controls and regulates…”

The ball is in your court, no mine.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

When Christians steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the Creator manifested in the creation, or when they imply that such knowledge is merely personal or private, or cannot be established by science, logic, or reason, and especially when they teach such things, they, in my humble opinion, do damage to the faith of others.

Wow… @deliberateresult… and here I was thinking that your saying things like the sentence I quote above is doing exactly the same thing! - - damaging the faith of other Christians!

@deliberateresult

I do not claim that God’s existence can be “proven” by the evidence. I do claim that the evidence exists and that it is strong.

I am relieved to see you re-affirm this position. While your choice of the word Evidence is reasonable … your last phrase is walking a tightrope.

To some people the Evidence is strong; to many people the Evidence is arguable.

And this should explain why you are still arguing, and why so many others aren’t convinced by what you say, even though they might be science experts.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@glipsnort

I’m thinking of antibody specificity. Presumably the DNA that codes for a functional protein contains functional prescriptive information, since that’s precisely what ID proponents are usually talking about when it comes to biological information. But that kind of information comes into existence all the time without the action of an intelligent agent, when the adaptive immune system develops antibodies in response to infection.

For example, I have DNA in my body that codes for antibody proteins that are perfectly tuned to bind antigens produced by the 1968 Hong Kong influenza virus. I wasn’t born with DNA that had that information; instead, the information was created by repeated rounds of mutation (somatic hypermutation) and selection, part of an immune system with no conscious controller.

Hi Steve…

I read and respond to posts sequentially, so I did not realize you have already offered an example.

Recall that a mutation amounts to a copying error to an existing genetic message. By way of analogy, consider the written word. Suppose I instruct my secretary to send you the following message: “meet me by the well.” Unfortunately, in her haste she sends this to you instead: “meet me by the wall.” Could we consider her typographical error to be the source of this prescriptive information? I don’t think so. The source remains me in this case. My original message has been altered, but I remain the source. Because an original message exists, we stop our trace prematurely at the point the typographical error was made. In the same way, we stop prematurely at the mutation.

But when it comes to genetic mutation, it gets even worse. There remains much that we don’t know. At least some scientists believe the ability of an organism to achieve a beneficial mutation is programmed.

Therefore, I think your example fails immediately in that you are talking about not the origin of genetic information, but the alteration of a previously existing piece of genetic information, and I think it is possible that the example could also fail ultimately, should the hypothesis of non-random evolution every be confirmed.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@deliberateresult

Recall that a mutation amounts to a copying error to an existing genetic message. By way of analogy, consider the written word. Suppose I instruct my secretary to send you the following message: “meet me by the well.” Unfortunately, in her haste she sends this to you instead: “meet me by the wall.” Could we consider her typographical error to be the source of this prescriptive information?

Of course we should consider her the source of that part of the information. Where else did the information about the wall come from? It didn’t come from you, did it?

Note also that in your case, the introduced information isn’t functional, while in the real case it is. My DNA has prescriptive information for carrying out a specific function – a function that didn’t even exist when I was born, since that strain of flu wasn’t around yet. If your concept of functional, prescriptive information means anything at all, then my memory B cells contain functional, prescriptive information that arose from a well-understood biochemical process with no detectable intelligent agent present. Something you said never happens.

@deliberateresult

But when it comes to genetic mutation, it gets even worse. There remains much that we don’t know. At least some scientists believe the ability of an organism to achieve a beneficial mutation is programmed.

At least some scientists believe all kinds of poppycock. At present, there is zero evidence that organisms are programmed to produce specific beneficial mutations, and abundant evidence that they produce random mutations. Random mutations are perfectly adequate to explain the origin of the functional information in question here. Invoking some possible future discovery does nothing to support your claim about the evidence we have today.

@deliberateresult

Therefore, I think your example fails immediately in that you are talking about not the origin of genetic information, but the alteration of a previously existing piece of genetic information,

Let’s see if I have this right. I started life with N bits of functional information in my germline DNA that coded for antibodies. After 50+ years of life and numerous encounters with pathogens, I have a much larger amount of functional information in my DNA, coding for pathogen-specific antibodies. And those additional bits of information. . . I actually have no idea what you’re arguing here. Are you seriously saying that information doesn’t count as information if it arises as a modification of previous information? If so, then all human language also doesn’t count as information, since we generate language by modifying the language we learned as kids. What doea “information” mean, if that’s the case? Further, that would also mean that any amount of evolution (say, fish to humans) could occur without the creation of any new information or the involvement of an intelligent agent – because everything in our DNA is just a modification of earlier DNA. Is that the tack you want to take?

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

@Eddie, @deliberateresult

@Eddie

I do not claim that God’s existence can be “proven” by the evidence. I do claim that the evidence exists and that it is strong.

Cautiously and well stated.

Though in the same post Joe stated:

@deliberateresult

When Christians steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the Creator manifested in the creation, or when they imply that such knowledge is merely personal or private, or cannot be established by science…

Doesn’t, “established” here mean the same thing as, “proven”?

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

@deliberateresult

I do see the evidence for an intelligent agency when it comes to life.I would love for you to elaborate.

I see the evidence of God in nature as in Romans 1:2:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

According to Paul, God’s nature and power are “clearly seen” in nature, not, “provable” by trying to make a cell or demonstrating that God must have created a DNA molecule in early Cambrian. Just being alive should make everyone know that God exists. If you have to prove it by providing scientific articles then the game has already been long lost.

With cognizance of God, the difference between our views is that I’m comfortable with stating that the design is in the universe, while you seem to need to have it in something else so that God, “created” a cell, DNA molecule, person, etc.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Joe -

You do not seem to understand the argument on how the immune system generates antibody instructions. Rather than spend some hours re-writing someone else’s introductory prose, I provide a link for your edification. Here’s a well-written primer that describes how stochastic recombination provides a pool of candidate antibody instructions. It will provide you with enough background to understand the argument that our friend @glipsnort is making.

btw, the author is a Christian biologist on the faculty of Gordon College.

Fraternally yours,

Chris Falter

[fmiddel]

@deliberateresult

I do not claim that God’s existence can be “proven” by the evidence. I do claim that the evidence exists and that it is strong.

I agree with you on this.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Richard_Wright1

I do not claim that God’s existence can be “proven” by the evidence. I do claim that the evidence exists and that it is strong.
Cautiously and well stated.

Though in the same post Joe stated:

deliberateresult:
When Christians steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the Creator manifested in the creation, or when they imply that such knowledge is merely personal or private, or cannot be established by science…

Doesn’t, “established” here mean the same thing as, “proven”?

There is a big difference between saying that the existence of the God of the Bible can be proven and saying that evidence for the existence of a Creator of life has been established, even if one wishes to say that established = proven.

Let me ask you this Richard: Do you believe that the fine tuning of the universe constitutes strong evidence for a Creator

[Chris_Falter]

@deliberateresult

Do you believe that the fine tuning of the universe constitutes strong evidence for a Creator

Hi Joe,

I agree that fine tuning constitutes evidence(1) for a Creator. However, the fine turning argument is an exercise in philosophy, not science.

Best,
Chris Falter

(1) Whether it is “strong” depends on one’s view of the multi-verse hypothesis, and I don’t know enough about the physics to take a stance on the issue.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@glipsnort

But that kind of information comes into existence all the time without the action of an intelligent agent, when the adaptive immune system develops antibodies in response to infection.

For example, I have DNA in my body that codes for antibody proteins that are perfectly tuned to bind antigens produced by the 1968 Hong Kong influenza virus. I wasn’t born with DNA that had that information; instead, the information was created by repeated rounds of mutation (somatic hypermutation) and selection, part of an immune system with no conscious controller.

Exactly. Another way to put it is that the creation of a novel protein-protein binding site, with a very tight (low nanomolar to picomolar) dissociation constant, by Darwinian mechanisms occurs in mere weeks on a routine basis in all of us. That crosses Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and completely falsifies the thesis of the book.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Chris_Falter

You do not seem to understand the argument on how the immune system generates antibody instructions. Rather than spend some hours re-writing someone else’s introductory prose, I provide a link for your edification. Here’s a well-written primer that describes how stochastic recombination provides a pool of candidate antibody instructions. It will provide you with enough background to understand the argument that our friend @glipsnort is making.

Joe,

I second Chris’s advice. Your response to Steve shows a severe lack of understanding of the basic facts.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

Let me ask you this Richard: Do you believe that the fine tuning of the universe constitutes strong evidence for a Creator

@deliberateresult

Joe, I’m surprised at the whimsy of your question!

Any Universes that didn’t fall within the Goldilocks parameters wouldn’t have life as we know it. And if there was some other kind of life… they too would be shaking their heads in wonder at how precisely tuned the Universe is… just for their special needs. Ha!

To me, the most impressive evidence for a Universal Being is the existence of human consciousness. It is no scientific proof to be sure… but no scientist has an adequate explanation for consciousness. Without God, it really has no purpose - - once one understands how epiphenomena affects the discussion!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Richard_Wright1

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

According to Paul, God’s nature and power are “clearly seen” in nature, not, “provable” by trying to make a cell or demonstrating that God must have created a DNA molecule in early Cambrian.

@deliberateresult

And so the natural philosophers of the Enlightenment Period argued as well! To know natural law was to know God.

It’s really not a scientific argument … it’s a philosophical one!

[GJDS]

@Chris_Falter

the fine turning argument is an exercise in philosophy, not science.

The so called fine tuning (and constants) is not philosophy as such, but a deduction we may draw regarding the scientific understanding of the Universe. In essence, science states that science can only postulate the Universe we observe - another way of summarising - it is almost impossible to envisage any Universe, than the one we do. The arguments are usually cast as changing the values of various mathematically required values and constants, and noting that ‘things we observe’ would never occur if this were to take place.

I take a philosophy of science approach in that science and maths postulate the Universe (or all objects of matter, energy, space and time) as it is - thus we would conclude it is comprehensible within a beginning as an act of creation, and a continuum as we understand time (and space and everything). Detailed discussions are available, especially from well qualified mathematicians and theoretical physicists (e.g. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
for Intelligent Life, by Luke A. Barnes).

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@GJDS

The so called fine tuning (and constants) is not philosophy as such, but a deduction we may draw regarding the scientific understanding of the Universe. In essence, science states that science can only postulate the Universe we observe - another way of summarising - it is almost impossible to envisage any Universe, than the one we do. The arguments are usually cast as changing the values of various mathematically required values and constants, and noting that ‘things we observe’ would never occur if this were to take place.

@GJDS Even if you think this is the only viable kind of Universe, my point is the same. Only the beneficiaries of a finely tuned Universe, intelligent are the ones who can say “Wow… look how finely tuned the Universe is!”.

This is not a satisfactory evidence on its own. But I think it is relevant to a person’s position of Faith, including yours and mine!