Sunday, December 13, 2015

Biologos and Science: The Case of the OOL

Evolution is at a Tipping Point

Evolutionists claim their theory is a fact and one way they support this claim is by construing the relationship between religion and science according to what is known as the Warfare Thesis, a mythological retelling of history where scientific skepticism is marginalized as anti intellectual. But the Warfare Thesis is more than merely a perversion of history. When Biologos appeals to the Galileo Affair, for example, to support its evolutionary beliefs it is propagating a false history, but the misrepresentations do not stop there. The Warfare Thesis also relies on a false witness of science.

The Galileo Affair is the posterchild of the Warfare Thesis myth. As the story goes, poor old Galileo was a great scientist just doing his job when, after inventing the telescope, discovered the Earth goes around the Sun and this led to a firestorm of religious opposition from biblical literalists who naively and dogmatically referred to those passages of Scripture that say the Sun revolves around the Earth, and all this led to merciless persecution, torture and imprisonment of Galileo.

Furthermore, just as the literalists opposed poor old Galileo in the seventeenth century, so too they are opposing the innocent evolutionists today. If you admit that Galileo was right about heliocentrism back then, then you must agree that evolutionists today are right about mutations creating the species. It is just good solid science at work.

But this is a false argument on every count. First, this retelling of the Galileo Affair that we hear so often today is all wrong. Galileo did not invent the telescope, he did not discover, or otherwise prove, heliocentrism, he was not just a humble scientist, the serious opposition and legal problems he faced did not stem from biblical literalists, the Scripture does not say the Sun revolves around the Earth, and Galileo was not tortured and did not go to jail.

Yes, there were those who viewed heliocentrism as violating scripture, but generally they were easily dissuaded. There was much more serious resistance that Galileo would face. For example, his ideas unquestionably violated Aristotelian physics and ideology which not only was still active but at times had been elevated practically to the status of official church doctrine. Furthermore (i) Galileo’s caustic personality, and his penchant for humiliating people and making enemies (including his one-time friend, the Pope), (ii) the fact that leading astronomers of the day by no means were in agreement on this cosmological question and often held to opposing views, and (iii) the turbulent politics of the day, all conspired to make the going tough for Galileo.

It is misleading and a misrepresentation of history to hold up the Galileo Affair as an example of biblical literalism opposing scientific progress. Yet there it is.

But false history is not the only fruit of the Warfare Thesis, it also leads to false science. Just as historians prevaricate on the history, scientists prevaricate on the science. Consider, for example, the origin of life (OOL) problem.

The spontaneous generation of life was once accepted, but Darwin contemporary Louis Pasteur demonstrated it does not happen. His Law of Biogenesis stated Omne vivum ex vivo (all life from life), and the burden of proof fell to the evolutionists to prove that over time evolution gets lucky, or that there was something different about the early Earth that changes the rules. Well the early Earth was indeed different, but not in ways that help evolution. And deep time doesn’t help either. Evolutionists have been trying to demonstrate the plausibility of life arising spontaneously, over millions of years, from non living chemicals for almost a century now with no luck. And luck is exactly what is needed, an astronomical amount of luck.

Evolutionists have explored every conceivable mechanism, and then some, to tackle the OOL problem. Perhaps life evolved in a warm little pond, or in bubbles, or in crystals, or at deep sea vents, or in clay, or by hypercycles, or from comets. Some have even said it must have been planted here by extra terrestrials because otherwise the OOL problem requires a miracle to solve.

Not only have evolutionists failed but we now have an enormous body of work confirming what common sense (and Pasteur) indicated all along—the most complicated thing in the universe probably didn’t arise spontaneously by chance events.

But none of this changed the evolutionist’s high claims that their idea is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. Scientific evidence didn’t seem to matter. In fact for many years evolutionists were not shy about claiming victory, in spite of the obvious failures. Mainstream evolutionists, organizations, and textbooks insisted the OOL problem was essentially solved, with only the details to be ironed out.

That, of course, was an enormous misrepresentation of science. More recently evolutionists have fortunately been more forthcoming about the empirical findings. They have agreed that the problem has not been solved, and that solutionists are not right around the corner.

For evolutionists that was quite a concession, but it did not change their overall truth claims. Evolution is still an undeniable fact and the misrepresentation is now at more of a philosophical level. This is obvious, for example, at the BioLogos presentation on the evidences for evolution. which makes this argument:

The fact that there is no answer today does not mean there will be no answer tomorrow. Though an explanation for the origin of life is currently elusive, this does not mean divine intervention is the only possible explanation.

The religious agenda is obvious. God must not be an intervening God—special divine action must not be allowed. The state of the art must not be reported as indicating any serious problem for OOL; rather, the problem merely has not yet been solved. This opens the door to scientific misrepresentations which come next:

Although we do not know the path that led to these early bacterial forms, it seems likely DNA had emerged as the information molecule by this time. Microbiologist and physicist Carl R. Woese suggests there was a considerable amount of lateral gene transfer among the first forms of bacteria called archaebacteria. Lateral gene transfer, which is the movement of genes from one bacterium to another, would have enabled the exchange of genetic material, and it would therefore expedite the process of diversification of biological function acted upon by natural selection.

Most in the BioLogos audience won’t recognize the falsehoods in these technical claims. It is easy to fudge the facts when no knows any better but these are, nonetheless, serious misrepresentations. No, it is not “likely” that “DNA had emerged as the information molecule by [a 100 million years of the Earth cooling].” That would be a tremendous breakthrough in OOL research if that were true.

But it isn’t true.

There is no experiment or even calculation show that this is likely. In fact it is the exact opposite. Such a scenario is not likely by today’s science, and that is one of the many problems for OOL.

Next, to say that Carl Woese called for “a considerable amount of lateral gene transfer” is another misrepresentation. Woese called for an entirely different scheme which might be called lateral gene transfer on steroids. This is important because Woese’s idea has no analog in reality. Nothing of the sort has ever been observed in the field or synthesized in the laboratory. What Woese needed was a fanciful world of communities of unicellular organisms which somehow spontaneously arose and then engaged in a highly organized, complex process of sharing genetic material which, if not carefully controlled, would have wreaked havoc even if it somehow could have arisen spontaneously (for which Woese presented no evidence).

The article concludes with more philosophical and fallacious misrepresentations:

Life on this Earth appeared approximately 3.85 billion years ago, yet serious scientific study of its origins began just 60 years ago. A convincing scientific explanation may still emerge in the next 50 years.

Question: What do 3.85 billion, 60, and 50 have to do with each other? Or more to the point, why would an older event require more time to figure out? Would the OOL problem be easier if it was supposed to have occurred 1 billion years ago? And why is 110 years required to solve the problem rather than 60?

The answer, of course, is that this is simply more machinations to avoid the clear and obvious fact that the scientific state of the art does not support evolution. Another machination is the use of false dichotomies:

it is dangerously presumptuous to conclude the origin of life is beyond discovery in the scientific realm simply because we do not currently have a convincing scientific explanation. Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith.

Wager their faith? Beyond discovery? Dangerously presumptuous? These warnings speak volumes for here we have a window into evolutionary thought. We must be evolutionists for otherwise we would be lost in a world of fideism where one’s very faith is staked to scientific failure. No wonder evolutionists are committed naturalists—their religion depends on it.

Finally, there is the ultimate argument which firewalls OOL off from evolution.

Finally, as a purely technical matter, the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation to the question of the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution becomes relevant only after life has already begun

As if sensing a problem, and just in case we were beginning to have doubts, we are told to forget about the whole thing. Forget about all those journals, conferences, textbook claims about the origin of life, popular books and newspaper articles, speeches and blogs. It all has nothing to do with evolution after all.

Evolutionists believe that the species, life, the Earth and planets, the Sun, the galaxies, yes the entire universe arose by chance events. There is no limit to what evolution can create, but when problems arise, the topic is simply dismissed as extraneous to the theory.

The fact, which evolutionists are at pains to avoid, is that OOL research has not merely failed to find a solution. It has positively succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that such a solution is unlikely. That is, according to today’s state of the art. Could that all change with future findings? Of course. Are philosophical end-arounds available such as redefining “evolution,” or invoking the anthropic principle and multiverse? Again, of course. But none of this changes the scientific facts.

Evolution is at a tipping point. In recent years evolutionists have increasingly had to admit that OOL research has not succeeded. The problem has not been solved save for a few minor details. Nor is there an obvious solution just around the corner.

But what evolutionists have not admitted to is what this implies about the fact of evolution. Evolution never was a fact and evolutionist’s insistence that it is has always been metaphysical. But the OOL problem is a good case study to make this crystal clear. It is abundantly obvious, to any objective observer, that evolution is not a fact. But evolutionists will not go there. At least not yet.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

73 comments:

  1. aMEN.
    The church was upholding pagan greeks ideas. not biblical ones. They were so impressed with mans ideas and put them on a equal plane with revealed religion.
    This error came back to bite them.
    A few verses also misunderstood.
    the catholic church today does not insist genesis is true but is impressed with evolutionist doctrines.
    The galileo.s of today, TRULY< are the yec/id creationists whether disagreeing with the cAtholic church or evolutiondom in the establishment.
    Oppressed also for dangerous, but true and conquering , ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evolution is at a tipping point.
    Not really. Evolution goes its merry way, not bothered by what creationists are saying.

    The SMBE meeting is still maintained for 2016, I don't see any panic in the community, so don't exaggerate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionists claim their theory is a fact

      No, they don't. Actually science goes out of its way to point out the difference between the observed fact of evolution - changes in populations over deep time - and the theory of evolution which explains the mechanisms which produced the fact.

      Since your opening premise is demonstrably false the rest of your argument can be ignored.

      Delete
    2. "Evolution goes its merry way, not bothered by what creationists are saying."

      Because it's not a live issue with most people, pro or con. It ranks in importance somewhere close to phrenology.

      Delete
    3. "the observed fact of evolution - changes in populations over deep time"

      ... by those billion year old scientists.

      Delete
    4. You just have articles about evolution in Science and Nature every weeks. Nothing about ID on the other side.

      Delete
    5. I think the entire field of medicine is trying to use our intelligence in the hope of only getting back to what we had. Not many hospitals go beyond curing to generating fundamentally new tissues and organs. I think the general consensus is that the amount of intelligence it would take to do something like that and incorporate it into the existing development pathway would more than what we can provide.

      Do you think differently?

      Delete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: this retelling of the Galileo Affair that we hear so often today is all wrong.

    Bruno was tortured then burned alive for heresy by the Inquisition in 1600. Galileo was put on trial for heresy in 1616. Don't try to minimize the role of the Church in persecuting Galileo. Only by recanting was Galileo's life sparred, and the greatest scientist of the age, perhaps of any age, was only subjected to house arrest, and his work banned.
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that Bruno's heresy was mostly in his politics and not in his science. And the biggest problem the Church had with Gallileo was political, as well. There was a personal element as well. He likes to insult people.

      Delete
    2. Bruno was a nutcase and the reason he got burned had nothing to do with science at all.
      Tim O'Neill wrote a nice post when "Cosmos" broadcasted that ridiculous cartoon:

      http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got.html

      Delete
  4. "The spontaneous generation of life was once accepted, but Darwin contemporary Louis Pasteur demonstrated it does not happen. "

    No, he didn't. He demonstrated that fly larvae do not spontaneously generate. In other words, modern organisms do not spontaneously generate.

    If you can find anyone who thinks that the first "life form" had DNA and the complex proteins that we see in all living forms today, you might have an argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends of what do you mean by first "life form". According to the theory the LUCA has to have the DNA and the complex proteins that we see in all living forms. If you mean th FUCA, nobody knows how it was, and thee is no evidence he aver existed.

      Delete
  5. From the first pp:

    Who in the world argues evolutionary biology as fact supported by the idea that science and religion are antagonistic toward each other? Not a single person that I know of.

    'Science skepticism'? Science, by nature is skeptical. Science works in all ways possible to prove findings wrong until they can't be. To characaterize anti-evolution and creationism as 'science skepticism' is putting a very pretty face on a veneer that seeks to cover rampant and premeditated theism while rejecting anything that argues against it.

    So much for the first pp...whew.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just in from Scripps: self replicating RNA - it does work!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you read it? Usually if you look under the hood, the "world hunger solved" headlines usually turn out to be similar to this case. It's just two ribozyme ligases modified to ligate each others' two subunits in such a way as will not make the headline a complete lie only to lay people. Self replicating RNA (as both template and catalyst) is a holy grail of the RNA world crowd. If by self, they expect you to mean the entire system, then grammatically it is not a lie except the part about it being indefinite. That's only not a lie if you allow for them to dump intelligently designed prefabbed half ribozyme monomers into the stew. Yeah, then it's IMMORTAL!!!

      You'll find this a common theme in evolutionary "explanations" for genes as well. The mechanisms of HGT, transposons, recombination, gene duplication, etc.. that supposedly drives gene creation all have this idea of putting one last mutation like a hood ornament on an already folded and functional gene that changes it's expression pattern, or some aspect of the organisms gross physiology (as in the Lenski experiments) and then saying, "behold - this is where genes come from, we explored the sequence space, and look what popped out!"

      It's a complete joke and depends upon lay people thinking there is some major difference that they will just never be able to understand but the scientists must.

      You realize they basically isolated this rna from an already existing organism right? They don't even get credit for it's basic structure.

      Delete
  8. "Just in from Scripps: self replicating RNA - it does work!"

    Dennis I'm a little curious. Are you a Theistic Evolutionist ? The reason I asked is because I read your paper in the link and it appears that every step of that Dr Joyce experiment along with his lab assistants intelligently manipulated several steps in intelligently designing synthesized RNA enzymes to replicate. Again, I don't believe any of the

    "Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication."

    Just this one paragraph is loaded with these researchers forcing adaption, speaks of them as having goals, of creating intelligently invented synthetic molecules to carry out their purposefully intended direction for the experiment. The skepticism comes in when it is insisted intelligence had zero to do with this since that is not what happened and there is no way to believe, with the exception of blind faith, that such and such took place on a world with no life.

    "This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline.", Dr Joyce

    I don't think any creationist or IDer would argue that life doesn't originate from elements from this earth and may have started with simple formations of elements coming together in processes right up to actual life as said in the above quote. But the problem is that the evolutionary dogma since Darwin has always insisted intelligence had nothing to do with life appearing. The Scripts group manipulation in the Lab only reveals to us that it takes one or more intelligent designers to manipulate elements in a perfect protected world they create and using their knowledge and collective understanding maneuver things to reach their personal biased goals in reaching an intended purpose. So when you say,

    "To characaterize anti-evolution and creationism as 'science skepticism' . . . . . ", you are not being fair because people who have life came about by no intelligence whatsoever, no purpose, goals, plans based on ideas, then clearly it would be reasonable that people who are religious etc would have a right to indeed be skeptical with certain science claiming to be one thing but practicing another. Do you see where the problem is ? I never come over here because it is normally worthless to discuss things here, but I just had to ask this question. Mostly I follow some of these articles (not all) from Cornelius on Google+. Still, I have seen this same line of reasoning and it appears to be more of a religious argument than a raw unbiased sciencey one. Does this make sense ? Again, it sounds like you are a Theistic evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin Franck: it appears that every step of that Dr Joyce experiment along with his lab assistants intelligently manipulated several steps in intelligently designing synthesized RNA enzymes to replicate.

      Sure. It doesn't "prove" abiogenesis, but confirms a basic prediction of RNA World, that RNA can self-replicate. Other experiments show that random RNA sequences can have autocatalytic function.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel,

      "Sure. It doesn't "prove" abiogenesis, but confirms a basic prediction of RNA World, that RNA can self-replicate."

      Do you realize what absolute nonsense this statement contains? Of course RNA can self-replicate. It is designed to do so. Nobody questions the fact RNA can self-replicate, that is not the question. The question is and always has been, why is it able to self-replicate and where did that ability and indeed RNA itself come from?

      Delete
    3. Nic: Of course RNA can self-replicate.

      Huh? What? RNA was proposed as a self-replicator as part of RNA World back in the 1960s. This has only recently been confirmed.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      "Huh? What? RNA was proposed as a self-replicator as part of RNA World back in the 1960s. This has only recently been confirmed."

      Does that change the fact it was designed to self-replicate?

      Delete
    5. Did the RNA self polymerize. Isn't that what it would actually need to do before it could be considered anything like life?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This whole thread is funny because both sides trusted the evolutionists.

      Nic, from a design perspective, if a ribozyme can splice itself, it's already "created" itself out from the RNA it was in. In that sense, it has no further need for unchecked replication as that signal would already be controlled by whatever promoted the parent DNA or something else within the operon. The only reason evolutionists are trying to get it to not only ligate two ends of RNA, but to polymerize the whole sequence with fidelity is so they can have a self replication concept small enough to wrap their heads around... a starting point. I doubt the original biological purpose was to undergo unchecked self replication, but rather to separate and work on another substrate. When you say things like, "of course RNA can self-replicate" you are conceding on the term replicate in a way I don't think you were aware of. If you were bluffing, then you shouldn't be doing that, and if not, then I hope you are using the term "self replicate" in a really really weird way.

      Zachriel, it doesn't confirm "a basic prediction of RNA World, that RNA can self-replicate", because it does not self replicate. It simply anneals two halves that are separately replicated and amplified by the researchers. They then attach those prefabbed halves to ends recognized by ribozymes in the solution and dump it in. As you can see, this would not sufficiently explain replication in the way commonly connoted by the word. If I take a tractor and hitch it to a trailer, I did not "replicate" a tractor trailer. Nor is it a start in understanding the origination of trucks. Well, maybe it is to evolutionists.

      Delete
    8. John,

      "I hope you are using the term "self replicate" in a really really weird way."

      This is one of those embarrassing moments when you realize you should not be posting when you are over tired. One of those moments when you read one thing and something else entirely goes through your mind.

      Ever had one of those moments?

      Delete
    9. John: It simply anneals two halves that are separately replicated and amplified by the researchers.

      The RNA in the experiment is certainly highly contrived, but it's been shown that such a system can evolve, and recently that it is capable of exponential growth. The hypothesis is that RNA-ligases joined oligonucleotides to form complex RNA networks.

      Other experiments have demonstrated RNA-templated polymerization.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. It's capable of exponential growth because there are more replicators being poured in. It's similar to any chemical reaction you are willing to supply an indefinite amount of substrate to.

      Delete
    12. John: It's capable of exponential growth because there are more replicators being poured in.

      More RNA oligonucleotides. That's sometimes called food. For instance, humans require complex amino acids in their diet. As for exponential growth, simply adding resources wasn't sufficient. A long period of evolution was required before the levels of efficiency for exponential growth were achieved.

      Delete
    13. Common dude, providing two halves of the solution is not called "food" any more than going to the doctor to have him stitch your leg back on makes your leg and body "food" for the conceptual whole. I suppose with whoppers that big, it's a trifle to point out that neither is RNA made of amino acids.

      My point about exponential growth is that it is not growth the way life grows, but growth the way even far simpler chemical reactions "grow"... until the substrate is used up.

      Delete
    14. John when you IDiots provide your very first piece of positive evidence for the "Intelligent Design" and manufacture of self-reproducing organisms then you can bitch about how real science doesn't have all the answers yet. Until that happens you can put a sock in it.

      Delete
    15. The hypothesis is that RNA-ligases joined oligonucleotides to form complex RNA networks.

      The only evolving RNA produced just the minimum self replicating RNA.( Spiegelman's Monster)

      Delete
    16. Blas: The only evolving RNA produced just the minimum self replicating RNA.( Spiegelman's Monster)

      Good example.

      Delete
    17. Zachriel: Good example.

      Good example for what? To show that blind evolution goes nowhere. If evolution were blind all what would have evolve are spheric procariotes at most.

      Delete
    18. ghostrider, if an entire planet of organisms containing what amounts to galaxies of robotic cities doesn't convince you of a designer, I don't know what will. You're like a drowning man asking for a soda.

      And it doesn't bother me that science doesn't have "all the answers". I'm not the one denying the answers it is already providing. If you won't accept what science is telling you now, what good will more do you?

      Delete
    19. Sorry John but most people are smart enough to know that analogies aren't evidence. That message apparently hasn't sunk in yet for IDCreationists who still think "this superficially looks like a human designed thing, therefore it IS a designed thing" is supposed to sway science.

      No positive evidence for IDCreationism = no scientific credibility. It really is that simple.

      Delete
    20. The operative part - proteins being robotic - is not really an analogy. You should check some of them out.

      http://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/motm-by-title

      Isn't it amazing they can even find and bind to each other at all given all the new amyloid sludge they must be sorting through that are just awaiting that last one or two mutations to become functional and beneficial!!!

      Delete
    21. The operative part - proteins being robotic - is not really an analogy.

      Yes John, it is an analogy. Intelligent people know analogies aren't evidence.

      Isn't it amazing they can even find and bind to each other at all given all the new amyloid sludge they must be sorting through that are just awaiting that last one or two mutations to become functional and beneficial!!!

      Yeah, the laws of chemistry and physics they follow are neat. Still zero evidence of any Intelligent Designer though.

      Delete
    22. Why is it an analogy? It looks like a robot, it acts like a robot. They have hands and feet and walk like robots. They carry things with their hands. There are many types of motors.

      I think the most damning thing is that if you knew who designed it, you would call it machinery. So really, the argument is about terms, terms you object to because of the implications you know exist.

      How much more mechanical would it have to be before you would say it was designed?

      Delete
    23. ghostrider,

      "Yeah, the laws of chemistry and physics they follow are neat. Still zero evidence of any Intelligent Designer though."

      Sounds like a great argument and it's used by evolutionists all the time. One problem though, laws are the result of design, they don't come about by random actions.

      Delete
    24. John

      Why is it an analogy? It looks like a robot, it acts like a robot. They have hands and feet and walk like robots. They carry things with their hands. There are many types of motors.


      Oh my.

      Proteins aren't organic molecules. They're actually teeny tiny robots with actual feet and hands for carrying things.

      That's some FSTDT quality stupidity John. I'll be sure to give you credit with the submission.

      Delete
    25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8

      Why does being made out of something organic mean something can't be mechanical? Which atoms are allowed to be used and which aren't? Why are biologists only allowed to call them hands and feet if they are evolutionists, but not if they are creationists? What is it that has you resorting to name calling instead of answering my questions?

      How much more mechanical would it have to be before you would say it was designed?

      Delete
    26. Blas:

      "The only evolving RNA produced just the minimum self replicating RNA.( Spiegelman's Monster)"

      The discription given over at Wiki reads:

      Spiegelman's Monster is the name given to an RNA chain of only 218 nucleotides that is able to be reproduced by an RNA replication enzyme. It is named after its creator, Sol Spiegelman, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

      So if I'm reading this correctly, it took the intelligence of a Creator to accomplish this intended goal. That is interesting. No mention of blind unguided forces helping out in any way, shape or form.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Evolutionists go on their merry way. Evolution is not going on it's merry way. A growing plethora of 'details' of the Theory and OOL are even more mysterious than they ever were, the obstacles to overcome are more imposing than previously known. The way is hardly merry, it is shut - apart from the supernatural.

    Case in point, now the postulation is that the original life form had no DNA or 'complex' proteins?! So an alien life form, a science-fiction life form like nothing we know. Yet to postulate an Intelligent Designer by the same definition will get you mocked and ostracized. #irony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I know is if they were coaching my favorite football team and were producing the results that they are, but promising to "one day make my team a winner!" They'd be fired long ago.

      Delete
    2. John
      "Case in point, now the postulation is that the original life form had no DNA or 'complex' proteins?! So an alien life form, a science-fiction life form like nothing we know. Yet to postulate an Intelligent Designer by the same definition will get you mocked and ostracized. #irony"

      Don't you get it? The fear of mocking and ostracizing is how they keep the "flock" from straying.

      Delete
    3. All I know is if they were coaching my favorite football team and were producing the results that they are, but promising to "one day make my team a winner!" They'd be fired long ago.

      LOL! If science were pro football the IDCreationists would be the scared little five year olds throwing a Nerf football in their room and dreaming of being a real player someday.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. ghost

      Give me one analogy to living things that is not intelligently designed or you're fired.

      Delete
    6. Phillymike

      Give me one analogy to living things that is not intelligently designed or you're fired.


      Your head is hard as a rock.

      You lose.

      Delete
    7. I have to ask you Phillimike: where in the world did you come up with this stupid idea that making an analogy between a living thing and a human created thing is evidence of Design? Analogies are simply human constructs which compare some small similarity between two entities to help human understanding. Describing rain clouds as being analogous to lawn sprinklers when it comes to watering the grass isn't evidence rain clouds were Intelligently Designed. Seriously, this is Ken Ham level of stupidity.

      Delete
    8. Dude
      If you can't do it just say so. You don't need to get nasty.

      Delete
    9. LOL! Dude, I did do it. :)

      So from where did you get that original stupid idea?

      Delete
    10. "LOL! Dude, I did do it. :)"

      No you didn't my head will be just as hard when I'm dead. Lol

      Delete
    11. Evolution is not going on it's merry way I'm sorry to say that indeed, evolution is not bothered by OOL. There are still a lot of things to explain but everything is fine and dandy. Maybe you could link to some press article of science article about the panic in evolutionary biology.

      Delete
  11. GW:

    See it's like this. We learned from designing things that it is really, really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design. We know of no examples of things that have these characteristics that were not designed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that design is necessary to make something with these characteristics. The analogy is more than just a heuristic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know of no examples of things that have these characteristics that were not designed Your example is so vague it does not mean anything. What do you mean by designing things with certain characteristics ?

      The weird patterns in sand dunes could qualify as characteristics ? Or a tornato ?
      Or the molecular view of a diamond ? Would you consider those stuff designed ?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Shevi S. We learned from designing things that it is really, really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design.

      We know it's sometimes hard for humans to make such things. It's not hard for long term evolutionary processes.

      We know of no examples of things that have these characteristics that were not designed.

      Science knows of plenty. IDers' ignorance is not our problem.

      Delete
    4. Since we've never actually seen long term evolutionary processes make anything with these characteristics. we can't really tell whether it is hard or not. And the actual evidence seems to indicate that you really need more time than is available.

      Delete
    5. Since we've never actually seen long term evolutionary processes make anything with these characteristics. we can't really tell whether it is hard or not.

      "Hard' is a relative term. We do have conclusive evidence evolution produced the life forms we see today.

      And the actual evidence seems to indicate that you really need more time than is available.

      Sorry Nat, that's just your ignorance talking again.

      Delete
    6. GR:

      #1. If by evolution you mean different species living at different, then I guess we do have some hard evidence. If by evolution you mean a Darwinian process, then that's a different story. By hard, I meant impossble, or so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

      #2. The evolution of a single bio-polymer is extremely unlikely given the fact that you need to string a whole bunch of small molecules together in a very specific sequence. That being the case, I think the burden of proof is on the Evolutionist to demonstrate that it could happen in the time available.

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      ""Hard' is a relative term. We do have conclusive evidence evolution produced the life forms we see today."

      You dodge and weave like some hockey players I used to play against. They could make all kinds of moves but could never get the puck to the net. Know what I mean? ;)

      Delete
    8. Nic I provided you with a link to view the evidence for evolution. You were too afraid to look at it. If that's "dodging and weaving" then I guess all of science dodges and weaves. The only person who can do something about your willful ignorance is you.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider,

      "I provided you with a link to view the evidence for evolution."

      I have viewed the 'evidence' for evolution many times over the years, that's why I am not an evolutionist. What gives you the idea that if I look at your so-called 'evidence for evolution' I will suddenly find something that will change my mind?

      You can accuse me of willful ignorance all you like, it bothers me not one iota. The fact of the matter is I used to believe in evolution and changed my stance upon looking at the 'evidence' with an open mind. Something I very much doubt you have done.

      Are going to answer my question? Do you know what I mean about getting the puck to the net?

      Delete
    10. You can accuse me of willful ignorance all you like, it bothers me not one iota.

      Most willfully ignorant knobs aren't bothered by the fact they're willfully ignorant. Otherwise they'd do something about it.

      Are going to answer my question? Do you know what I mean about getting the puck to the net?

      No idea what you're on about.

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      "Most willfully ignorant knobs aren't bothered by the fact they're willfully ignorant. Otherwise they'd do something about it."

      What makes you so sure I was not willfully ignorant in the past when I accepted evolution and by looking at the evidence with an open mind did something about it which resulted in my no longer being willfully ignorant?

      As with evolution you cannot demonstrate I am willfully ignorant, you can only assert it, which is not any kind of an argument. So, you find yourself in a lose-lose situation once again. Not surprising.

      "No idea what you're on about."

      Okay, I think provides me with an answer.

      Delete
  12. Calamity:

    Do the examples you listed have irreducible complexity or highly specified complexity or a functional integration of parts, or a neat little data processing system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of those things have been demonstrated to evolve through natural evolutionary processes. Ten years after Dover and the IDiots still haven't come up with any new arguments.

      Delete
    2. Tot he best of my knowledge, the examples listed do not have the characteristics i mentioned, so they don't demonstrate that design is not needed to make things that do have the characteristics.

      Delete
    3. Does the molecular structure of a diamond have irreducible complexity, or highly specified complexity? I was under the impression that a diamond's molecular structure was rather simple.

      I do believe that the designer designed all things, yes. But I can't demonstrate that from all things. My belief that the Designer designed all things is based more on theology than science.

      Delete