However, you are totally wrong… you misunderstood the whole thing…
if you would read that article (i know you did not), you will find out, that NASA used GA for the optimization of the shape of the antenna … THAT IS IT …
SHAPE optimization… 1 part…an optimization of the shape of a single part… nothing more…
But the engineers had to figure out, if you want to receive /transmit a signal, you need an antenna … a GA won’t tell you …
Further, the engineers had to figure out, what was the best material to made the antenna from… a GA won’t tell you…
and so on… and so on…
By the way, your antenna example, what are the 7 parts which work in concert?
According to you, we only see multiple parts acting together when they’re the result of an intention. Therefore, we should conclude that viruses are designed. It’s also true that we only see intentions where brains are present. If your logic is sound, then we should also conclude that viruses were designed by something with a brain. Right?
(Except that we actually see many, many complex collections of parts functioning together without any evidence of intention, in every living thing. On the other hand, we really don’t see intentions without brains.)
Martin , by your definition, It would seem the can opener sitting in my kitchen cabinet intends to open cans, correct? And the cans in the pantry intend to stay intact and protect the tomatoes inside? I don’t think that is how most people define intention.
the can was designed, to protect tomatoes from degradation …
INTENTIONALLY… that engineer who designed these things had an intention.
So Phil, you are on the right track…
by the way, i have to admit i am bit confused.
Who are you guys? I know that the BioLogos are so called theistic evolutionists (believe in God and evolutionary creation, which happened by unguided natural process, random mutations + natural selection)
But i also suspect some atheists are here as well.
Phil, please, help me to understand, who is visiting this BioLogos forum?
and Phil, one more thing in regards to tomatoes can / can opener design.
Most of you guys don’t realize, that there are always 2 layers of design.
first, you have to design the can opener itself … then you have to design to can opener assembly process… how the can opener will be assembled… step by step… because, a can opener won’t come into existence by itself…
so, the can opener, is not the only design, also the assembly (manufacturing ) process has to be designed…
not to mention, you have to chemicaly design / develop all the suitable materials used for the can opener… a can opener made out of paper won’t help…
Then look at the cell… it assembles 3D objects (moving objects), big heavy objects (a blue whale) without the need of any parts / material suppliers or assembly-workers…
Tell me Phil… when will human engineered products self-assemble and multiply ? without the need of a material /parts suppliers and assembly-workers…
Martin, the forum is open to all, so long as they adhere to the standards listed in the guidelines at the top. You will find a fairly wide variety of folks posting, some are atheists, agnostics, YEC, ID, EC, undecided. You will find various shades of evangelicals, Orthodox, unorthodox, Unitarians, dividitarians, and Catholics occasionally. The mainline folks here are pretty much EC, however, so that is where most are coming from. It appears you are from a primarily ID belief system, which is fine. ID and EC have a sort of complicated relationship, with a lot of common ground, but some very different ideas at other points.
In any case, good to hear your voice.
No, not at all. I don’t know if English is your native language, but you appear to be confusing words here. An intention is a mental act, and requires a sentient being to perform it. Viruses are not sentient. What you have provided are examples of function. To that I would agree. You would also argue that they were designed by a sentient being, which might be the case but it’s an argument I don’t find persuasive. What I think is impossible is that viruses have intentions, that they have little minds that construct ideas about possible actions and choose between them. Not a chance.
Overall, I find your argument weak because I think it boils down to this: We observe many complex systems of multiple interacting parts that perform functions. Many of them are produced by intelligent beings (specifically humans). Therefore all of them have been produced by intelligent beings.
I think a more appropriate observation is that there seem to be two sets of the kind of complex, functional system you’re talking about: those that are produced by humans, and those that occur in systems that are the product of extremely long periods of evolution. We know that living things are the result of evolution because the signs of common ancestry are pervasive. By itself, that doesn’t demonstrate that these complex systems can arise naturally during evolution, but it is suggestive. Add to that the fact that ordinary natural processes can clearly add and dramatically change the function of genes, then a reasonable working model is that the process of evolution itself has generated these systems, at least in the absence of any detectable alternative mechanism for designing and manufacturing them.
Note the explicit denial that God is uninvolved in natural processes:
“We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history
We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.”
Employees, board members, members of the speaker’s bureau, and volunteer moderators affirm these beliefs. BioLogos hosts discussion on the intersection of faith and science, so not every person who has ever written a blog post here is necessarily 100% affirming of the belief statement. Each author speaks for him or herself. As for the open forum, yes there are some atheists who are interested in the intersection of faith and science and participate quite productively. Atheists who just want to bash faith don’t usually last long under our guidelines. Everyone commenting on the forum is speaking on their own behalf, not as an official representative of BioLogos. Again, BioLogos just hosts the conversation.
Steve Schaffner is a bona fide scientist with expertise in genetics, not a mere layperson like many of us. He’s probably not going to throw out his credentials, so I will. He is going to give you reliable info.
Christy, thank you for the explanation… (i am new here, i had to ask)
However, could you be more specific, what do you guys believe?
e.g.
do you BioLogos guys believe that God is still involved, physically involved, but we can’t see him? Also, in what way is God involved, technically speaking… does God somehow physically influences the evolution on Earth, e.g. using retroviruses for genome editing /updating and so on …
Well I neither work for nor speak on behalf of BioLogos, but I affirm their statement of beliefs in Christy’s post above. The statement is quite clear that evolution is “a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.” I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking but would like to understand better.
Are you asking a question about design? Or are you asking what it means for God to be providentially involved in natural processes?
i apologize for my poor English, i am not native… by the way, i am from Europe. Nice to meet you.
Despite my poor English, i think my question is very very clear. So, again, please be more specific about how is God involved in evolutionary processes… again, it is a very clear and very simple question…
This is a theological question rather than a scientific one. The activity of God is not testable using the scientific method.
There are likely a diversity of opinions here on “how God is involved in evolutionary processes” that are based on one’s theological/philosophical views. I am probably in the minority here as a reformed/Calvinistic thinker in my belief that “every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes” (Charles Spurgeon) and “not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from [God’s will]” (Matt. 10:29).
Different people would have different ways of framing how they see God’s involvement and design in creation. I believe God is intimately involved in ongoing creative and sustaining work and that he “holds all things together” as it says in Colossians 1:17. I personally believe God is an artist and a designer and that creation obeys his will and reflects his sovereign plan. I think where many BL-type folks differ with ID-type folks is when it comes to:
I do not believe science has the tools to investigate how God is involved in evolution. Since evolution is an aspect of creation, I affirm that he is the Creator because of what I know about God through his revelation of himself in Scripture, Jesus Christ, and through what my intuition tells me when I look at his world. But I don’t think science will find incontrovertible evidence of design or be able to nail down a process by which God creates through evolution, or be able to somehow tease apart the natural and the supernatural when it comes to the wonders of life. Science by definition does not study the supernatural. God can not an object of scientific questioning.
I am an engineer, and i see a way how God or anyone else who is skilled and educated enough, or has the proper technology, can influence evolution on Earth.
So it is not a theological question… This can be done in real if you know how … Species can be modified by genome editing… this is a fact… Obviously, genomes can be edited by 3rd parties … just think of retroviruses… in other words, if you would be skilled enough to develop a retrovirus with a desired DNA sequence in it, you can influence the evolution on Earth. Not hypothetically, not theologically, but in real… moreover, nobody would notice…