DNA and Information

[TRoutMac]

First off, SETI hasn't located any such signal in the vast quantity of data analyzed. Since we don't have such an actual event we can't even discuss the actual circumstances of the discovery or this supposed conclusion.

 

That they haven't found such a signal is irrelevant. The fact is, they are looking, and the fact is that they expect a signal from an intelligent source to meet certain criterion. SETI expects to be able to determine with a high degree of certainty whether a signal is from an intelligent source if and when they encounter it. If they had no such expectation, they could not operate.

 

This establishes a basic principle… intelligence leaves behind certain cues which are detectable and that the scientific community in general accepts this basic principle. When these cues are absent, it becomes unreasonable to invoke an intelligent source. Likewise, when these cues are present, it becomes unreasonable to not invoke an intelligent source.

 

That's where we're at with DNA and the information it contains.

 

I know I will have reservations without some proof of origin.

 

What would you accept as "proof"?

[C1ay]

That they haven't found such a signal is irrelevant. The fact is, they are looking, and the fact is that they expect a signal from an intelligent source to meet certain criterion.

What is that criterion?

 

What would you accept as "proof"?

Don't know. I never figured it was worth much thought unless they came up with something they claimed was from an intelligent source. I suspect it would take a response to one of our transmissions to prove it but I'd long be dead before our query and their response could travel the celestial distance.

[TRoutMac]

SETI isn't looking for complexity, if we pick up radio signals from an alien intelligence, chances are almost zero that the modulation used for information transmission will be understood by us. What we are looking for is artificiality in these signals.

 

What you're describing is actually "complex specified information", right out of William Dembski. A solid whistle is complex and specified. It cannot be reproduced by natural means… it requires intelligence to devise a transmitter that will throw that signal at that frequency. Even a signal which is "simple" in the sense that it only occupies one frequency in a broad spectrum is complex and specified by virtue of the fact that "natural processes" cannot produce it.

 

We are looking for monochromatic transmissions in the radio spectrum that simply cannot be ascribed to any natural process which comes with a lot of radio noise.

 

Whoa… you're exempting yourselves from the very rules you insist that IDers obey! What you just described is an "argument from ignorance". If a signal cannot be ascribed to any natural process, then it must be intelligently designed. Sounds like "God of the gaps" to me!! You can't explain it, so it must come from an intelligence!!

 

This is the whole point of the SETI argument. You guys bash guys like Dembski in the context of Intelligent Design theory, but you don't even realize that you're using precisely the same methodology in SETI, where you apparently have no problem with it.

 

That's called a "double standard".

[Boerseun]

Once again, no.

 

We have decided to look for narrow-band frequencies that carries the hallmarks of artificiality. And only then have we switched on the 'scopes. We have 'predicted' what the most likely ET signal would be, and only then started looking.

 

ID looks at a strand of DNA, and then say 'Gosh - this must be designed.' If ID followed the SETI approach, they would have drawn up a piece of DNA without ever having seen one, and then looked through the microscope, prediction in hand of what they should find. The two approaches are miles apart, and not comparable in the least.

 

So what makes something 'Scientific', you wonder?

1. It is guided by natural law;
   
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
   
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
   
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
   
5. It is falsifiable.

ID falls flat on its face in all five cases. The only way for ID to be science, is for the scientific world to trash the above five points. Here's the score:

 

1. No Natural Law would guide a Supernatural Designer.

2. No Natural Law would explain a Supernatural Designer.

3. ID is not testable against the empirical world.

4. ID proposes its answers to be the final word.

5. It is not falsifiable.

 

ID is not science. Get over yourself.

[TRoutMac]

We have decided to look for narrow-band frequencies that carries the hallmarks of artificiality. And only then have we switched on the 'scopes. We have 'predicted' what the most likely ET signal would be, and only then started looking.

 

Here's an excerpt from William Dembski's reply to Seth Shostak on this very question:

 

But in fact, my criterion for design detection applies to the very signals that Shostak’s SETI Institute is looking for. Yes, as narrow bandwidth transmissions, the signals are simple to describe. But they are difficult for purely material processes to reproduce by chance. So we have simplicity of description combined with complexity in the sense of improbability of the outcome. That’s specified complexity and that’s my criterion for detecting design.

 

And here's another great quote (not Dembski) that puts it all in the proper perspective:

 

The plain fact of the matter is that biological ID is looking inward searching for signs of non-human intelligence while SETI is looking outward for the very same thing. The difference is we found something looking inward while looking outward has been fruitless.

 

ID looks at a strand of DNA, and then say 'Gosh - this must be designed.' If ID followed the SETI approach, they would have drawn up a piece of DNA without ever having seen one, and then looked through the microscope, prediction in hand of what they should find. The two approaches are miles apart, and not comparable in the least.

 

Obviously, for the last 50 years or so the mere appearance of DNA has not been a mystery. The fact that information can be encoded in literally an infinite number of ways means that to infer Intelligent Design, we need only to "predict" that DNA would contain complex specified information, and then test to see if it does. And you know what? It does.

 

ID is not science. Get over yourself.

 

Tell that to the guys at SETI. According to you, they're not engaged in a scientific pursuit. Either complex specified information points toward intelligence in all cases, or it doesn't point toward intelligence in any case. If CSI doesn't point toward intelligence, then SETI is out of business. If CSI does point toward intelligence, then ID is sound scientific theory.

 

And for the record, while I don't happen to believe that SETI will ever find a message from ET, I do recognize that their tactics are scientifically sound. So it's not me being logically inconsistent.

[C1ay]

Either complex specified information points toward intelligence in all cases, or it doesn't point toward intelligence in any case.

I disagree. By what reasoning do you think one can deduce that it's all or none? Does mankind have some kind of authority to say that all specified complex information arise from an intelligent source or else none of it does? Can anyone prove that complex information could not arise from any natural source?

[questor]

Cold Creation, you asked this question about the relevance of DNA information

in biological studies previously.

if we understood the mechanism of DNA data transmission and perpetuation, and the instructional system directing chemical activity in target cells, we would have a pretty good handle on life and evolution. if you can explain the sub-atomic elemental reactions that cause DNA to replicate, repair and maintain cellular tissue....have at it. most of the dissenters here want mathematical predictions and proof as part of their scientific acceptance system. so far i don't know any mathematically predictive way to explain DNA ,or consciousness, or life, or instinct, yet we know beyond question they exist. that was why i made the comment about a new math. after all quantum mecanics has only been around a hundred years or so.

[coldcreation]

Cold Creation, you asked this question about the relevance of DNA information

in biological studies previously.

if we understood the mechanism of DNA data transmission and perpetuation, and the instructional system directing chemical activity in target cells, we would have a pretty good handle on life and evolution. if you can explain the sub-atomic elemental reactions that cause DNA to replicate, repair and maintain cellular tissue....have at it. most of the dissenters here want mathematical predictions and proof as part of their scientific acceptance system. so far i don't know any mathematically predictive way to explain DNA ,or consciousness, or life, or instinct, yet we know beyond question they exist. that was why i made the comment about a new math. after all quantum mecanics has only been around a hundred years or so.

 

Dear TroutMac,

I think there is great confusion about SETI.

Point in fact:

The "intelligent" life they are looking for has nothing to do with the "I" in ID.

The "I" in SETI refers to some life form capable of producing and sending radio signals. That is not something a cow can do. So we call those potential ETs intelligent.

That "I" is not God.

The "I" in ID, however, is God (with or without a beard).

Where do the IDers get the insane idea that SETI is the search for an intelligent God? Because the word intelligent is used?

You used the term ID theory. ID is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. Look up the word theory. ID is theology, look up the work theology. Huge difference.

As far a the comparison with the manner of research see http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_design.html

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html

 

Questor,

My views on consciousness can be found in a thread called The Quantum Relativity of Consciousness. There is a physical explanation for it...

You have a good point about not having at our disposition math that explains consciousness. But that does not mean a door is wide open to claim anything you like. It is just a question of time before the answers come, and rest assured, they will not be coming from the Vatican.

 

As a biology major in college I disected quite a few creatures (sharks, fetal pigs, cow eyes, frogs, earth worms, fish, etc.). Not once was there an impression that a designer had intervened. All, including the worm, with it's primitive nervous system, it's sexual reproductive system, and its circulatory system had almost the same fundamental features as we humans.

 

These similar characteristics (along with similar DNA material) constitutes physical evidence that life on earth has a common origin, that life has evolved from a common source. The fossil records too are unequivical.

 

ID supporters have not produced one shread of evidence to support their strange claim.

 

Hope that helps seperate fact from fantasy.

 

cc

[HydrogenBond]

The DNA is not that complicated with respect to how it stores infor. It uses four base pairs in various combinations. Instead of binary it is more like quaternary. The compexity comes from the number of genes making it diffucult to explain each and every one.

 

The conceptual problem that most people have with DNA is giving it too much of a role, analogous to the brain of a cell. I look at it more as the hard drive with all the data needed to operate the cell. Other things, utilize this DNA hard drive. If one took out the DNA from a cell, the DNA is useless outside the confines of the cell. If I am not mistaken, red blood cells lose their DNA, yet will continue to function without it. I may be wrong and red blood cells might lose the nucleus but keep the DNA.

 

Let me give a good example of the DNA being reactionary instead of the brain of the cell. If we think of food one can make themselves hungry. With the hunger instinct due to chemicals outputted by cells within the brain, we manipulate the DNA when we think of food in our imaginations and get hungry. Genes will unpack and the rate of RNA transcription will increase, allowing these brain origin cells to increase the output production of the chemical needed to amplify the hunger response. If DNA was top of the heap one could not do this. But because it is at least partially subject to human will (nervous activity) it is not always at the top.

[TRoutMac]

I think there is great confusion about SETI.

 

I'd certainly agree with that.

 

Point in fact: The "intelligent" life they are looking for has nothing to do with the "I" in ID.

 

Sorry, but you're badly misinformed. Intelligence is intelligence. It is a quality that can be possessed by a human, an alien, dolphins and many other animals (to varying degrees). It is a general term which describes the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge or the faculty of thought and reason. That you wish to differentiate it in the case of SETI only means you've recognized the trap you've set for yourself.

 

The "I" in SETI refers to some life form capable of producing and sending radio signals. That is not something a cow can do. So we call those potential ETs intelligent. That "I" is not God. The "I" in ID, however, is God

 

You're really making the point of the SETI argument quite well. Intelligence is indeed required to send radio signals which carry complex specified information or even occupy a very narrow, specific frequency range. Likewise, intelligence is required to devise a sophisticated chemical code such as DNA which carries complex instructions.

 

That "I" [The "I" in SETI" is not God. The "I" in ID, however, is God

 

I'm impressed that you know this and are so certain of it. IDers go out of their way to avoid making such claims… claims that are "untestable" and not within the purview of science. Apparently you have no qualms about violating that boundary. I've often said in this forum that ID theorists are far more respectful of the limitations of science than evolutionists are, and this appears to support that claim.

 

Where do the IDers get the insane idea that SETI is the search for an intelligent God? Because the word intelligent is used?

You used the term ID theory.

 

Where do you get the insane idea that I ever said SETI searches for an intelligent God? I certainly never said anything of the sort. Such a ludicrous straw man will not serve your purposes with me, however. Again, refer to the first paragraph in this response. Intelligence is intelligence. The capacity to use knowledge and apply logic and reason. It says nothing about the identity of the being who possesses intelligence. Dolphins have intelligence. Dogs have intelligence. Presumably aliens have intelligence.

 

ID is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. Look up the word theory. ID is theology, look up the work theology. Huge difference.

 

I really don't know how someone could be so far off the mark on so many levels. Theology is the study of God. Intelligent Design is the study and detection of intelligent causes. Apply it to whatever you like… orgin of life, crop circles, a grave stone, whatever. In each case the intelligent designer will be something different, but all intelligent designers will have one thing in common: Intelligence.

 

I hope that helps clarify things for you.

[coldcreation]

Sorry, but you're badly misinformed. Intelligence is intelligence. ... That you wish to differentiate it in the case of SETI only means you've recognized the trap you've set for yourself.

 

Humans are certainly intelligent (so too are dolphins and orca perhaps), but that does not mean the intelligence came from an intelligent designer. It it has been modified and handed down generation after generation. The storage place, if you will, is inside the DNA.

 

There is no trap. I simply point out that SETI is not looking for the intelligent designer. The IDers only capitalize on the use of the same word in an attempt to influence the masses, that they too have a scientific background objective, when in reality ID has nothing to do with science, nor anything else empirical (no amount of observing and no experiment can possibly, even in principle substatial ID claims). This is why this discussion, your arguments specifically, albeit interesting from a theological viewpoint, has zero to do with biology, DNA or information transmision.

 

You're really making the point of the SETI argument quite well. ... intelligence is required to devise a sophisticated chemical code such as DNA which carries complex instructions.

 

Question: If not a bearded god, or other skilled all-might creator, who is the architect, who is the designer, where does his intelligence come from? In your answer please be specific. And if ID should be taught in schools, who has the authority here on earth to proclaim and explain ID to the masses: a mathematician, a physicist, a president, a Pope?

 

IDers go out of their way to avoid making such claims… claims that are "untestable" and not within the purview of science. Apparently you have no qualms about violating that boundary. ...

 

I would love to here from you or any other IDer a testable claim, e.g., one within the scope of science. Where or what is the boundary condition (that yes I clearly violate) between a supreme being, god, and an intelligent being, designer?)

 

I really don't know how someone could be so far off the mark on so many levels. Theology is the study of God. Intelligent Design is the study and detection of intelligent causes. Apply it to whatever you like… orgin of life, crop circles, a grave stone, whatever. In each case the intelligent designer will be something different, but all intelligent designers will have one thing in common: Intelligence....

 

You've hit the nail on the head of the problem. It is my claim as an x-biologist and designer (I would like to think an intelligent one) that the souce or origin of complexity, DNA, intelligent life whether here on earth (or somewhere else in the universe), can be explained with evidence provided that supports the evolutionary process first outlined by Darwin. That evolutionary process (which can be traced back much further than Darwin had suspected) has indeed lead from elementary particle building blocks, to simple chemical structures, to life forms capable of creating impossible figures in two dimensions that cannot exist in three (C1ay has on depicted on the left hand side of his posts, extracted from what is known as a Möbius strip). As intelligent being we have to be very carefull to differenciate what is product of the imagination and what is real, what is pure fantasy and what is observable in the universe, what is pure human creativity and what has been created by random mutations and natural selection.

 

Co-l--d---c----r-----e-----a------t-------i--------o---------n

[TRoutMac]

Humans are certainly intelligent (so too are dolphins and orca perhaps), but that does not mean the intelligence came from an intelligent designer.

 

When did I say that intelligence came from an intelligent designer 'because humans are intelligent'? You would have an easier time debating this issue if you'd debate things I actually said.

 

It it has been modified and handed down generation after generation. The storage place, if you will, is inside the DNA.

 

DNA stores instructions for building, among other things, a functional brain. As mentioned before, the quality of intelligence is not tangible nor directly observable… Questor's made this point a number of times, and he's right. Unless you use the word "intelligence" as a synonym for "information" (and the word can have that meaning) you cannot say that DNA stores "intelligence". DNA itself does not have the capacity to reason or acquire knowledge. It's simply a vehicle for conveying information.

 

There is no trap. I simply point out that SETI is not looking for the intelligent designer.

 

SETI is not looking for an intelligent designer? Perhaps a brief English lesson is needed here… "Intelligent" is an adjective. It describes the noun which it accompanies. The noun in this case is "designer". A designer is one who designs things. While in our everyday conversations we most frequently use the word "designer" with reference to a human, a designer does not have to be a human. If an alien (or aliens) possessed intelligence to the extent that they were capable of designing an instrument that would transmit a signal that could be received here on Earth, they would be worthy of the very broad term "Intelligent Designer".

 

It is my claim as an x-biologist and designer (I would like to think an intelligent one)…

 

See? Now you understand. You yourself are an "intelligent designer". Unless you view yourself as God, it appears you finally see that an "Intelligent Designer" is not automatically God. Perhaps we're making progress.

 

The IDers only capitalize on the use of the same word in an attempt to influence the masses, that they too have a scientific background objective, when in reality ID has nothing to do with science, nor anything else empirical (no amount of observing and no experiment can possibly, even in principle substatial ID claims). This is why this discussion, your arguments specifically, albeit interesting from a theological viewpoint, has zero to do with biology, DNA or information transmision.

 

What do you have against the scientific disciplines of archaeology, cryptography, forensics? You just invalidated them. According to you, those fields of study have no relevance to science. The research into Intelligent Design relies on the ability to detect design. If, in reality, there's no scientific, objective way to detect design, then archaeologists are out of a job. So are forensic scientists. So are the guys down at SETI.

 

You see, this is the trap you've caught yourself in… in truth you accept the findings of archaeology as legitimate. If an archaeologist finds an object with symbols carved into it, they conclude that the object was designed. A forensic scientist is analysing a crime scene, you accept with no question that he or she will be able to detect design… that they will be able to piece together clues which might reveal the intent, the "design" of the criminal. You accept that a cryptographer will be able to detect design when he or she endeavors to solve a secret code. If there is no way to detect design, then there's no way to know a code is a code. So you accept these forms of design detection and you view them as legitimate scientific endeavors. But if someone applies the same "technology" to biology, suddenly you have a problem with it. We call that a "double standard".

 

Question: If not a bearded god, or other skilled all-might creator, who is the architect, who is the designer, where does his intelligence come from? In your answer please be specific.

 

That's a discussion which would need to take place in the theology forum. The identity of the designer is not scientifically ascertainable. Why don't you post that question in the appropriate forum?

 

And if ID should be taught in schools, who has the authority here on earth to proclaim and explain ID to the masses: a mathematician, a physicist, a president, a Pope?

 

Ummm… it's a radical idea, I know, but how about teachers?

 

I would love to here from you or any other IDer a testable claim, e.g., one within the scope of science. Where or what is the boundary condition (that yes I clearly violate) between a supreme being, god, and an intelligent being, designer?)

 

I've dealt with that question in the topic "Intelligent Design" which someone else started up in the theology forum. We can test to detect design… it's no great mystery. Again, if we could not detect design, then we would not have archaeologists and we would not have SETI. We know from human experience that when intelligent agents (usually humans) design things, the things they design exhibit certain characteristics. One such characteristic is the transmission and storage of messages. Intelligent agents devise codes of various kinds which convey information. (information meaning abstract concepts and thoughts, not simply bits of generic data) Intelligence is the only known source of such codes, and indeed intelligence is the only known source of language. In addition, we know that intelligent agents produce machines which exploit the laws of physics in order to serve a purpose. These machines consist of complex arrangements of interdependent parts, each of which is crucial to the proper function of the machine. Therefore, to test for design in biological systems, we simply analyse those systems to see if they exhibit the same characteristics. And you know what? They do. Within a single cell you find all these manifestations of intelligence:

 

1. An information storage, retrieval and processing system

2. Information itself… an expression of complex, abstract instructions

3. A system of language; a code

4. Complex molecular machinery which exploits the laws of physics to attain a particular goal, and which consist of numerous interdependent, functionally integrated parts.

 

These things are directly observable and are consistent with what we know is produced by intelligent designers. This is the positive case of design… something that ID bashers say does not exist.

 

It is my claim as an x-biologist and designer (I would like to think an intelligent one) that the souce or origin of complexity, DNA, intelligent life whether here on earth (or somewhere else in the universe), can be explained with evidence provided that supports the evolutionary process first outlined by Darwin. That evolutionary process (which can be traced back much further than Darwin had suspected) has indeed lead from elementary particle building blocks, to simple chemical structures, to life forms capable of creating impossible figures in two dimensions that cannot exist in three (C1ay has on depicted on the left hand side of his posts, extracted from what is known as a Möbius strip).

 

This is a fairy tale. It has no basis in science, that is… the ideal of science. There are embarassing and profound logical inadequacies in the theory of macro-evolution which evolutionists refuse to acknowledge or deal with. Macro-evolution is indeed its own "argument from ignorance"… we don't or can't understand how life could have been created, therefore it must have evolved. Nevermind that we can't point to anything else in our experience that evolves the same way.

 

As intelligent being we have to be very carefull to differenciate what is product of the imagination and what is real, what is pure fantasy and what is observable in the universe, what is pure human creativity and what has been created by random mutations and natural selection.

 

I agree. Unfortunately those who support Darwin's theory of macro-evolution appear to be incapable of making such distinctions.

[TRoutMac]

Humans are certainly intelligent (so too are dolphins and orca perhaps), but that does not mean the intelligence came from an intelligent designer.

 

When did I say that intelligence came from an intelligent designer 'because humans are intelligent'? You would have an easier time debating this issue if you'd debate things I actually said.

 

It it has been modified and handed down generation after generation. The storage place, if you will, is inside the DNA.

 

DNA stores instructions for building, among other things, a functional brain. As mentioned before, the quality of intelligence is not tangible nor directly observable… Questor's made this point a number of times, and he's right. Unless you use the word "intelligence" as a synonym for "information" (and the word can have that meaning) you cannot say that DNA stores "intelligence". DNA itself does not have the capacity to reason or acquire knowledge. It's simply a vehicle for conveying information.

 

There is no trap. I simply point out that SETI is not looking for the intelligent designer.

 

SETI is not looking for an intelligent designer? Perhaps a brief English lesson is needed here… "Intelligent" is an adjective. It describes the noun which it accompanies. The noun in this case is "designer". A designer is one who designs things. While in our everyday conversations we most frequently use the word "designer" with reference to a human, a designer does not have to be a human. If an alien (or aliens) possessed intelligence to the extent that they were capable of designing an instrument that would transmit a signal that could be received here on Earth, they would be worthy of the very broad term "Intelligent Designer".

 

It is my claim as an x-biologist and designer (I would like to think an intelligent one)…

 

See? Now you understand. You yourself are an "intelligent designer". Unless you view yourself as God, it appears you finally see that an "Intelligent Designer" is not automatically God. Perhaps we're making progress.

 

The IDers only capitalize on the use of the same word in an attempt to influence the masses, that they too have a scientific background objective, when in reality ID has nothing to do with science, nor anything else empirical (no amount of observing and no experiment can possibly, even in principle substatial ID claims). This is why this discussion, your arguments specifically, albeit interesting from a theological viewpoint, has zero to do with biology, DNA or information transmision.

 

What do you have against the scientific disciplines of archaeology, cryptography, forensics? You just invalidated them. According to you, those fields of study have no relevance to science. The research into Intelligent Design relies on the ability to detect design. If, in reality, there's no scientific, objective way to detect design, then archaeologists are out of a job. So are forensic scientists. So are the guys down at SETI.

 

You see, this is the trap you've caught yourself in… in truth you accept the findings of archaeology as legitimate. If an archaeologist finds an object with symbols carved into it, they conclude that the object was designed. A forensic scientist is analysing a crime scene, you accept with no question that he or she will be able to detect design… that they will be able to piece together clues which might reveal the intent, the "design" of the criminal. You accept that a cryptographer will be able to detect design when he or she endeavors to solve a secret code. If there is no way to detect design, then there's no way to know a code is a code. So you accept these forms of design detection and you view them as legitimate scientific endeavors. But if someone applies the same "technology" to biology, suddenly you have a problem with it. We call that a "double standard".

 

Question: If not a bearded god, or other skilled all-might creator, who is the architect, who is the designer, where does his intelligence come from? In your answer please be specific.

 

That's a discussion which would need to take place in the theology forum. The identity of the designer is not scientifically ascertainable. Why don't you post that question in the appropriate forum?

 

And if ID should be taught in schools, who has the authority here on earth to proclaim and explain ID to the masses: a mathematician, a physicist, a president, a Pope?

 

Ummm… it's a radical idea, I know, but how about teachers?

 

I would love to here from you or any other IDer a testable claim, e.g., one within the scope of science. Where or what is the boundary condition (that yes I clearly violate) between a supreme being, god, and an intelligent being, designer?)

 

I've dealt with that question in the topic "Intelligent Design" which someone else started up in the theology forum. We can test to detect design… it's no great mystery. Again, if we could not detect design, then we would not have archaeologists and we would not have SETI. We know from human experience that when intelligent agents (usually humans) design things, the things they design exhibit certain characteristics. One such characteristic is the transmission and storage of messages. Intelligent agents devise codes of various kinds which convey information. (information meaning abstract concepts and thoughts, not simply bits of generic data) Intelligence is the only known source of such codes, and indeed intelligence is the only known source of language. In addition, we know that intelligent agents produce machines which exploit the laws of physics in order to serve a purpose. These machines consist of complex arrangements of interdependent parts, each of which is crucial to the proper function of the machine. Therefore, to test for design in biological systems, we simply analyse those systems to see if they exhibit the same characteristics. And you know what? They do. Within a single cell you find all these manifestations of intelligence:

 

1. An information storage, retrieval and processing system

2. Information itself… an expression of complex, abstract instructions

3. A system of language; a code

4. Complex molecular machinery which exploits the laws of physics to attain a particular goal, and which consist of numerous interdependent, functionally integrated parts.

 

These things are directly observable and are consistent with what we know is produced by intelligent designers. This is the positive case of design… something that ID bashers say does not exist.

 

It is my claim as an x-biologist and designer (I would like to think an intelligent one) that the souce or origin of complexity, DNA, intelligent life whether here on earth (or somewhere else in the universe), can be explained with evidence provided that supports the evolutionary process first outlined by Darwin. That evolutionary process (which can be traced back much further than Darwin had suspected) has indeed lead from elementary particle building blocks, to simple chemical structures, to life forms capable of creating impossible figures in two dimensions that cannot exist in three (C1ay has on depicted on the left hand side of his posts, extracted from what is known as a Möbius strip).

 

This is a fairy tale. It has no basis in science, that is… the ideal of science. There are embarassing and profound logical inadequacies in the theory of macro-evolution which evolutionists refuse to acknowledge or deal with. Macro-evolution is indeed its own "argument from ignorance"… we don't or can't understand how life could have been created, therefore it must have evolved. Nevermind that we can't point to anything else in our experience that evolves the same way.

 

As intelligent being we have to be very carefull to differenciate what is product of the imagination and what is real, what is pure fantasy and what is observable in the universe, what is pure human creativity and what has been created by random mutations and natural selection.

 

I agree. Unfortunately those who support Darwin's theory of macro-evolution appear to be incapable of making such distinctions.

[Boerseun]

TRout, you keep on insisting that the ID approach is 'more' scientific than current theory. So, I'll repeat myself:

 

What makes something 'Scientific', you wonder?

1. It is guided by natural law;
   
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
   
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
   
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
   
5. It is falsifiable.

ID falls flat on its face in all five cases. The only way for ID to be science, is for the scientific world to trash the above five points. Here's the score:

 

1. No Natural Law would guide a Supernatural Designer.

2. No Natural Law would explain a Supernatural Designer.

3. ID is not testable against the empirical world.

4. ID proposes its answers to be the final word.

5. It is not falsifiable.

 

ID is not science. Get over yourself.

 

And if you do not adhere to scientific principles, don't claim that you do. You are claiming scientific authority that you simply don't have.

[TRoutMac]

TRout, you keep on insisting that the ID approach is 'more' scientific than current theory.

 

Yes, I do. And I will. You and everyone else here with an axe to grind against Intelligent Design has failed miserably to answer the simplest of questions. The lot of you cannot conjure up a logically coherent reason why Intelligent Design doesn't pass scientific muster. All you have is your unsubstantiated claims and talking points. No one here has been able to explain why Intelligent Design in one context is scientific, but in other it is not. All you've offered thus far are subjective opinions stemming from your religious loyalty to methodological naturalism. I've demonstrated clearly why methodological naturalism itself is smoke and mirrors and is actually an albatross around the neck of science, and all of you have ignored it because you cannot conjure up a reply to it. I've demonstrate very clearly why those who embrace methodological naturalism are closed-minded and subjective, while those who reject it are open-minded and objective. Collectively, you have avoided that issue. None of the ID basher/evolutionists here have been able to account for a gain in information content, or the origin of information. Nobody has here has been able to explain how natural selection permits macro-evolution. And no one has been willing to step up and explain why Richard Dawkins can compare DNA to computers but IDers cannot. In short, no one here has been able to explain away the glaring inconsistencies, embarassing contradictions and stark double-standards of the naturalist/Darwinist view.

 

I know that my understanding of DNA and its function is scientifically correct, and I know that my interpretation of the evidence are logically consistent and aligned with science in many other disciplines and I've explained why. So, believe what you want to believe. But if you're going to apply the label of "science" to it, then perhaps you (collectively) ought to come prepared to back it up.

[pmaust]

Troutmac, I have been sort of following this discussion off and on. It is interesting. I don't have an ax to grind in this debate one way or another but, I'd like to ask you this.

 

It appears to me that the designs brought about as a result of evolution do appear to have some rhyme and reason to them. But, couldn't the "intelligence" that we ascribe to those designs be intrinsic and natural? As you have pointed out, cells have evolved, developed, however we want to phrase it, into very complex things. They possess and seemingly process information. It is not difficult for me to imagine that our intelligence is a natural progression of evolution. Of course, I want to see this proved and demostrated scientifically.

 

The problem I have with ID is that we can't know of any other origin but natural. We can't produce the alien that designed us. God doesn't seem to want to come around and discuss it with us. I don't intend this in a mean spirited or unkind way at all. But, where did God go? Why have the aliens abondoned us? The only thing that we have that we can study is nature. In the absence of evidence of aliens or God, the only thing we have is a natural explanation even if it appears to be intelligent.

 

Anyway, please know that I am not trying to be offensive here. I do very much appreciate diverse opinions and ideas. I do learn and enjoy the conversation and postings here. I believe we should be open minded but, I am not sure what can be gained by them in the long run. Without the left over test tube from the alien or god, natural seems to be the only explanation for these things.

[coldcreation]

Yes, I do. And I will. You and everyone else here with an axe to grind against Intelligent Design has failed miserably to answer the simplest of questions. The lot of you cannot conjure up a logically coherent reason why Intelligent Design doesn't pass scientific muster. All you have is your unsubstantiated claims and talking points. No one here has been able to explain why Intelligent Design in one context is scientific, but in other it is not. All you've offered thus far are subjective opinions stemming from your religious loyalty to methodological naturalism. I've demonstrated clearly why methodological naturalism itself is smoke and mirrors and is actually an albatross around the neck of science, and all of you have ignored it because you cannot conjure up a reply to it. I've demonstrate very clearly why those who embrace methodological naturalism are closed-minded and subjective, while those who reject it are open-minded and objective. Collectively, you have avoided that issue. None of the ID basher/evolutionists here have been able to account for a gain in information content, or the origin of information. Nobody has here has been able to explain how natural selection permits macro-evolution. And no one has been willing to step up and explain why Richard Dawkins can compare DNA to computers but IDers cannot. In short, no one here has been able to explain away the glaring inconsistencies, embarassing contradictions and stark double-standards of the naturalist/Darwinist view.

 

I know that my understanding of DNA and its function is scientifically correct, and I know that my interpretation of the evidence are logically consistent and aligned with science in many other disciplines and I've explained why. So, believe what you want to believe. But if you're going to apply the label of "science" to it, then perhaps you (collectively) ought to come prepared to back it up.

 

Nothing written above has to do with biology, why then is this thread in the biology section. This thread belongs 100% in the theology section.

 

Questor has abandoned ship, the waves were too big, and TroutMac's fins are flipping 100 times/sec in a desperate attempt to rescue ID. But everything he writes is anti-Darwinian, antibiology and so fails. It fails because contrary to the scientific method which relies primarily on empirical evidence for conclusions to be drawn, ID relies of spirit, whim, and chimerical pilfering of words commonly used in science text books.

 

TroutMac, Questor (wherever you are), there is nothing bad or morally wrong about the fact that man has descended from primitive primates. On the contrary...

 

cc