The Minimal Genome Project: "Here we report a new cell"

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 1:59am

Your objection was about science not having tools to search for supernatural data. If ID methods are concerned only with universally observable matter, then your objection has no logical grounding.

beaglelady · May 4, 2016, 2:01am

Except that we know what ID is about.

GJDS · May 4, 2016, 2:03am

This is a case of demonstration - remove one bit and it does not work. That does not mean further research is prohibited. I agree that proving systematically a notion such as irreducible complexity by experiments appears extremely difficult. However I fail to understand your objection.

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 2:04am

So your objections needn’t make sense.

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 2:10am

IC is inescapably vindicated by genetic translation.

In a universe where no object specifies or represents any other object, it takes two objects to specify something – one to act as a medium, and the other to determine what is being specified.

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:14am

It seems to me that you have deemed those questions unanswerable…relegating them to the “unobservable past”…

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:16am

It seems to me that a case of irreducible complexity is the end of the question…TADA!

That’s the way I’ve understood it. I’ve never heard of an ID proponent investigating the “how.” Because the case itself is evidence for God’s intervention.

Why, on principle, would somebody investigate further?

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:17am

Well, I certainly remember the online excitement when it was “proven” that bumblebees could not fly according to the laws of aerodynamics.

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 2:18am

My comment was related to the question I asked: “What is your alternative to discovery”.

But thankfully, you’ve sprung to make your point. Powerful stuff.

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:24am

Eddie:

I agree with you. But of course you will find plenty of scientists (or supposed scientists) on the internet arguing that multiple universes are not a metaphysical claim but follow from sound physics, i.e., the equations require their existence.[/quote]

Untestable speculation.

I’m not competent to address such mathematical claims. It is remarkable, however, how the possibility of multiverses has been insisted upon much more frequently since the fine-tuning of our universe was discovered.

Go figure, eh? They must have some response to the existence of God, regardless how speculative…

What is the probability, if there is only one universe, which exists essentially by sheer accident, that this single universe would have properties fine-tuned for the rise of intelligent life? Very low. But if there are infinite universes, then one of them is bound to have the right properties. So we don’t need design to explain fine-tuning – just a naturally-occurring infinity of universes. Very convenient – allows for “intellectually fulfilled atheism.” Never mind that there is not now, and probably never will be, evidence for the existence of such universes. Evidence goes out the window when a world-view is at stake. Hawking, Krauss, etc. aren’t the slightest bit concerned about evidence. Their world-view drives their speculations as much as their math does.

Right.

Not quite. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum (or of anything irreducibly complex) poses a difficulty for evolution if evolution is conceived in a Darwinian manner. That is why Behe almost always puts “Darwinian” or “neo-Darwinian” in front of the word “evolution.” The idea of design is antithetical to Darwinian evolution, not to “evolution” per se. Behe himself accepts macroevolution from bacterium to man. He doesn’t think that the Darwinian mechanism can explain that larger process. For suggestions for alternative schemes of evolution which aren’t Darwinian, but still make use of natural causes, read Denton’s second and third books.

Of course. Unless the mechanism is not, actually, irreducibly complex. But I would suspect ID proponents are not looking. This is my point. Inquiry stops here because “we have what we need.”

I’m not interested in arguing about God doing or not doing anything, where doing is conceived of as some kind of interference in nature. The whole conception of interference in nature is un-Biblical to start with. Nature is God’s from the get-go, not some entity which has some sort of independent status which God has to “intervene” in to get something done. I’m interested in discussing what looks strikingly like design in living things, e.g., in the operations of a cell. I’m interested in arguing that design is a causal factor in the origin of the cell, not whether miracles were involved to get the design in there.

This is tantamount to saying that “God does not intervene.”

Design doesn’t mean intervention. Design means design. A blueprint, for example, is a design. Atheists think that cells arose without any blueprint. Christians have always thought the opposite. Then we have some EC leaders who agree with the atheists that there was no blueprint, but paradoxically insist that God is still Creator. What, then, does “Creator” mean? Someone who not only doesn’t “intervene” in the making of the world, but doesn’t even plan it? What an anemic, pathetic Creator that would be – certainly not one I would worship!

Well, you’re not talking to an atheist.

[quote]fmiddel:
for creation, God is not needed.

That is the Biblical view of creation – that God is not needed?

Um…are you kidding me? Are you suggesting that this is a claim that I AM MAKING?!

Geez, this is getting downright stupid. Please don’t quote me out of context…the way you just quoted me is EXTREMELY MISLEADING, and frankly, pisses me off.

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:25am

Scientifically, there is no alternative.

Thanks for the condescension. Maybe make your point more clearly.

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 2:35am

I’ve been asking you to make your point for virtually the entire length of this thread, and the post of yours I was responding to was exactly two words long. But if you need me to take all the responsibility for communication, I am happy to do so.

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:44am

My point is that ID stifles future investigation. No ID’er investigated what might give rise to “irreducibly complex mechanisms.” And of course, they could not. Because irreducibly complex mechanisms are evidence for ID’s primary assertion…so why would they?

fmiddel · May 4, 2016, 2:48am

Eddie:

No, I wasn’t suggesting that. I was asking you to take my side against the people you were referring to. See my next answer for more on my notion the Biblical and Christian God.[/quote]

Okay, but a couple of times you have “argued against atheists,” almost implying that I am one.

I’m not. I think that’s pretty clear.

ID and atheism are not the only two options.

I actually do believe the universe to be designed. I’m just not sure that ID is good science…

I know that. But how long have you been around BioLogos? How much have you interacted with TE/EC leaders? How many of their books and articles have you read? I’ve been interacting with them and reading their books and articles for years now. And they do sometimes come perilously close to saying that God neither acted directly in creation nor planned its specific outcomes. Not all of them, of course. But enough of them to make one raise an eyebrow.

That’s pretty well equivalent to Deism. I haven’t ever come across that. Certainly not here…

Among claims made by specific TE/ECs: (1) God just wanted a fecund universe, but didn’t have any precise directions regarding what it would produce; man didn’t need five fingers; he could have had six; in fact, an intelligent mollusk would have been all right, if that’s all that random mutations plus natural selection could spit out on earth; God could have had fellowship with mollusks in the image of God; (2) God did not specifically ordain that evolution should produce elephants, or any other species; (3) God would not have dictated evolutionary outcomes in advance, because then he would be a “tyrant”; a “loving” God would have given nature a creative role in what it produced, as a parent gives his or her children some autonomy and creativity as they grow older; (4) We hold to a “Wesleyan” view and God would never deny nature its “freedom” the way that nasty “Calvinist” God would.

That’s why Creation is not the fundamental argument for Christianity, nor the primary arena for argument. Jesus is.

[quote]These few examples should suffice to give you a picture. Do you see now what I am objecting to? God not only didn’t “intervene”; he didn’t even plan the outcomes, because that would be tyrannical, against creation’s free will, etc. I consider this sort of stuff, advocated in the name of Christianity – mainly by scientists and science fans who are pure dilettantes in the field of theology and know none of the textual tradition – to be rubbish, and dangerous rubbish. I’m quite willing to have God use mostly natural causes to bring things about, but I draw the line where it is said or implied that he doesn’t even have a concept in advance of how the cell is going to work, etc. If he doesn’t know what he’s doing, if he doesn’t compel nature to produce what he wills, he’s not a Creator in any recognizable Christian sense, but merely a sort of cosmic random event generator, leaving the universe to bring some order out of chaos.

Sure, again, I haven’t see that.

GJDS · May 4, 2016, 3:15am

My understanding is the IC notion is removal of one part renders the organism inactive/dead, which contradicts the notion the organism evolved from a previous simpler unit. Both IC and NDE suffer from a problem in terms of presenting a coherent theory - e.g. if a simpler unit is fully functional it must have adapted and flourish according to NDE - so who makes it evolve into another more complex unit?

To avoid a long and pointless debate, I do not favour either view - I simply make the point that demonstration and experimentation are not always the same, be it IC or NDE.

Biosemiosis.org · May 4, 2016, 3:25am

Yes I understand your position, it just that is falls apart in just about every direction. Firstly, if one scientist says “This is designed”, there will be another who says “No, it’s not”. If a thousand scientists say “This is designed” there will be another thousand who will say “No, it’s not”. It’s the nature of the beast. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that man intends to stop his quest to build life for himself (for many different reasons) which will require learning how to create biological IC systems. Thirdly, Michael Behe himself, as far as anyone knows, has not walked away from biological discovery. The idea that men like Michael Behe are just going to stare at the sky is silly, to be generous. And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the alternative is to ignore physical evidence. I find it hard to think we should express our protection of the institution of science by instigating a policy whereby we do not speak of that thing we do not speak of. And all of this fearful hand-wringing is over what exactly – the proposition that we have discovered something? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Your objection is just a tool, whether you mean it sincerely or not. And the place it shows it weakness the most is directly in front of the physical evidence.