We’ve been around this bush before - this is not a million dollar question, it is actually a relatively easy one: ID leaders claim that ID is a legitimate science on par with mathematics and physics and claim that ID can provide equally substantial proofs (as for theorems in those fields) that intelligent design can be detected in nature. Some of you may not like this definition but this is what Meyer (likely the most vocal ID leader) goes to great lengths to argue for in Darwin’s Doubt (and in many other places).
In my understanding, this is where BioLogos and ID split their beliefs - we all believe that God is ultimately responsible for all that ever was, is and will be, but TE does not claim to be able to prove specific interventions while ID insists on coming up with examples of natural systems that must have been designed. Most likely there would be no quarrels if only ID would a) step back from their claims ID is a science showing that “design is the only likely option” or b) formally prove that at least one of the systems used as examples could only have arisen by intervention of a “designer”.
On the other hand, even if (b) were ever shown to be true, I am not so sure that it would make much of a difference - the universal constants and equations in physics are much better examples of “irreducible complexity” than anything in biology and yet even those have not been translated into formal proofs of intelligent design.
Correct - those statements served only the purpose of clarifying what the rest of the post was about.
Note that that JCVI experiments towards a minimal cell are very much like the protein example I mentioned, but just at a larger scale of a whole cell rather than a single protein - figuring out which combinations of genes are essential for a functioning cell is quite analogous to figuring out which amino acids are essential for a functioning protein.
The fundamental difference between biological systems and electronic/mechanical/other-human-made systems is that we know of natural mechanisms by which biological systems can evolve. While there are certainly valid questions about whether we know enough about evolution to explain all observable diversity of life, we already know enough to plausibly explain many things that once seemed impossible to emerge by natural processes.
I agree that this is an un-testable assumption, as is the hypothesis that the minimal cell would resemble the original cell. But all things being equal, Occam’s razor well advises us to humbly accept that a minimal cell does not necessarily have to be the original minimal cell. We could go into more detailed arguments about how, for example, gene duplication and specialization over time might make it impossible to reverse engineer original genes which could have been inefficient but multi-functional but that’s probably much more detail than is required to see that a minimal cell does not have to be the primordial cell.
Why should we require that the original self-replicating systems must have had a translational mechanism?
Sorry Nuno, I don’t see where you addressed the counter I offered:
The minimum requirement for the origin of the system is established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into transcribable memory.
This is either true [rationally indicated] or it is not. I think I’ll give you another opportunity before I address Occam’s Razor and your question: “Why should we require that the original self-replicating systems must have had a translational mechanism?”
I do disagree with this statement - the minimal requirements for a system to “physically record and translate the amount of information necessary to describe itself into transcribable memory” are not the “minimum requirement for the origin of the system”. As easy analogy to think about this is that the set of genes required to describe a “minimal self-reproducing bird” is not necessarily that informative about the origins of birds from non-flying organisms, let alone their origins from non-terrestrial organisms. Of course, a single cell is much closer to primordial life than birds or any other animals but the principle is the same - the minimal version of any current organism does not have to represent the minimal self-replicating systems that could have later resulted in biological systems as we know them today.
Following along the same lines, the translational mechanism is just one example of a currently-essential mechanism that may or may not have been essential for the primordial self-replicating systems.
The bolded text is the system in question - i.e. the capacity to translate the genome of a heterogeneous living cell.
An organization that cannot provide a memory of itself cannot begin the cycle of life; an organization that cannot translate a memory of itself cannot begin the cycle of life. You disagree with this?
As always, I also welcome your pondered, well-thought-out position on these matters. If only the popular “faces” of the ID movement adopted your balanced views that “design is a reasonable hypothesis that should be seriously researched” rather than the more-commonplace “here’s how we can already show ID” then we would indeed have a lot less room for disagreements.
I also agree with you that this support for the non-exclusion of design could be more explicit from BioLogos leaders, especially since BioLogos’s “About Us” page clearly states that
We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history. - See more at: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos (emphasis mine)
I see little to no difference between the above BioLogos statement and the allowance (rather than full endorsement) for design in nature. I would also be curious to read how BioLogos staff and leaders would draw the line here - has this been discussed by any of them in other posts/books/venues?
I agree that this would be an inconsistent position - if one argues that the constants and laws of physics are evidence for intelligent design then there is no rationale for arbitrarily excluding the same principle in biology or elsewhere. Of course, this would not preclude debate on whether ID is detectable in specific instances of biological mechanisms (which is where most of the debate usually happens, as is the case on this thread).
It would not bother me at all! I would actually love to see a formal proof that life could not have originated without design. This is why I looked into Dembski’s work, as it seemed to be the most detailed formal attempt at this goal. My Christian faith does not hinge on this matter at all.
But it is exactly because of the extreme potential of such a proof to deeply transform society’s approach to religion that my approach is to require that such approaches meet the highest standards of formal and scientific proofs.
I should also add that approaching matters with a view that “we don’t know until we know” is not the same as being “eager to find a non-design explanation”. My current position is that we don’t know either way and it is premature from any side to claim that “it could only have been this way”.
Note the very beginning of the JCVI paragraph that you are quoting from:
Of course it is extremely unlikely that the origin of life (as in the very first self-replicating structure) was already a fully-formed cell. This actually reinforces the point I am making - finding a minimal cell according to mechanisms that are currently common to all forms of life is not necessarily the same as showing that such a minimal cell has to be how it all started.
We may or may not agree on these statements depending on how we define “organization” and “memory”. I agree that a self-replicating structure (as in a specific molecular structure) will convey a “memory” of itself in that self-replication implies that the structure creates copies of itself. As such, a copy of the same structure is in some sense a “memory” of the initial structure. That said, this is not the same as “memory”/“translation” in the cellular sense of these terms where the replication and storage mechanisms are represented by distinct entities.
A proof that life on earth could only have arisen through design would imply a designer and that would at the very least imply that we are not alone in the universe. A stronger proof that any life could only have arisen through design would imply that it could only have been caused by a designer outside of this universe. Both would have deep impact in how we see ourselves and our place in the universe.
I agree. And it’s exactly because it has such positive potential that I would like to see it happen. That said, attempting to claim “we’re there already” when we’re not is actually highly counter-productive and generates unnecessary resistance to Christian principles and beliefs. This is why we should be so self-critical on design - getting it right would be great but premature claims can hurt our core mission of communicating Christianity to those who don’t yet see its deeper truths.
Bio, you should read up more about the Wedge Strategy and the Wedge Document.
“The Wedge Document is a publication of the Discovery Institute which outlines their goal to bring the “controversy” over “evolution” versus “intelligent design” into the public arena, in a way politically contrived to get less informed members of the public to side with the idea of “teach both sides” (one side being “science”, the other religion).”
“It is the smoking gun that demonstrates that “intelligent design” is “creationism” in a thin disguise. The full text of the document can be found at Text of The Wedge Strategy. The story of how it came into the public domain can be found in this Seattle Weekly newspaper article.”
Note the very beginning of the JCVI paragraph that you are quoting from:
Do you mean, ignore the bolded text I was drawing your attention to? The translation apparatus?
finding a minimal cell according to mechanisms that are currently common to all forms of life is not necessarily the same as showing that such a minimal cell has to be how it all started.
Unless you are suggesting that our understanding (of the origin of the extant cell) is best obtained by ignoring the extant cell, then we can explore it. I would like to explore your notion that when we find phenomena (i.e. the translation of an informational medium) that are necessary and common in all extant living cells, we needn’t expect translation to be necessary to the origin of those cells.
Are you suggesting that some unknown prior organization formed and that organization had the capacity to lead to the extant cell? If so, is it also your position that this prior organization was capable of organizing the translation apparatus? Was it capable of doing so without the need to specify any of its components?
Bio: An organization that cannot provide a memory of itself cannot begin the cycle of life; an organization that cannot translate a memory of itself cannot begin the cycle of life. You disagree with this?
Nuno: We may or may not agree on these statements depending on how we define “organization” and “memory”.
The process of translating genetic memory during synthesis is fairly well understood. Are you wishing to introduce a process that deviates from that understanding? If you are wanting to introduce a process that is not capable of specification and translation, then just say so and we can begin there.