I’ve been talking about the question, “What is the origin of the formulated information (specified complexity) required to build the first living organism?”
Hugo says that question isn’t important.
Sandra says, “Thesauros doesn’t get it” and links to a page on macro evolution.
In a series I that I did on this subject (not evolution, Sandy dear, but on abiogenesis), I pointed out where, how and why the theories of Chance, Chemical Necessity and RNA replication:
. Did not meet the criteria of Best Evidence for explaining the origin of that type of information.
. Did not meet the criteria for causal adequacy.
. Are not the best possible answer to that question.
I explained why, if one has not restricted oneself to examining only a narrow band of evidence, this inability to meet minimum requirements for causal adequacy does open the door for inferring Intelligent Design.
Atheists say that is an example of an “argument from ignorance.” They said so in the series back then, and they said so again just a couple weeks ago.
What these people don’t seem to understand is that: Presenting Knowledge / Information that highlights the absence of compelling evidence of various theories (which I described in the series), combined WITH “evidence for” based upon observation, testing and verification, and THEN inferring Intelligent Design, is not the same as not having knowledge or information and then inferring Intelligent Design.
It’s the ABSENCE of knowledge that defines an argument from ignorance.
What I presented in the series and will reiterate below is that we, all of us, are cognisant of two things:
1) Natural explanations or theories are not workable (atheists say, “They will be some day”).
2) There IS an explanation that is not only workable, it has in every instance been observed, tested and verified as the ONLY means of producing the formulated information (specified complexity) needed to build the first living organism.
That is the direct opposite of an argument from ignorance and one has to be quite ignorant to suggest otherwise. You may be interested to know that those who make the accusation of ‘an argument from ignorance” also say,
“The instructions for them to do it [first cells replicating] are inherent.”
I’m not joking! If you want an example of an argument from ignorance, there are none better than this one.
“The instructions for them to do it [replication] are inherent.”
THIS is what atheists are like. THIS is how they think!
. In the series I presented a tremendous amount of information that showed the theories of Chance, Chemical Necessity and RNA replication are inadequate as causal adequacy.
IF this was an argument from ignorance, the ABSENCE of compelling natural evidence would be the ONLY criteria for inferring ID. But that is not the case. As well as a lack of causal inadequacy for the natural hypothesis, what we know is -
. Intelligent Agents are the ONLY known source of large quantities of functional information.
Even if there were NO OTHER REASONS, from a scientific standpoint this last reason on it’s own is enough to infer ID as the cause of the specified complexity that was in the first DNA, RNA and Proteins.
“The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”
Quastler, “The Emergence of Biological Organization” 16
The atheist’s response? ‘We don’t have any information today that answers this question, but some day we will. And to we atheists, a hoped for answer someday is just as good as a real answer today. Why? Because we have FAITH.’ Atheists hate it when I put words in their mouths so here is a direct quote,
“I just see better alternatives that are yet to be proven” Hugo - 7/12/10
I can’t argue with that! When you rule out the most obvious theory, you’re going to find that, as another atheist stated regarding a favourite science magazine, “It seems that every couple weeks there’s a new [theory].” How could it be otherwise?
Whatever information may or may not becoming to us in the future, what we know right now, today, from experience, is that when large amounts of specified complexity or functional information is present, Creative Intelligence or Intelligent Design has played a role.
That is a scientific fact based upon what is consistently observed, tested and verified over and over and over again. There are no known exceptions!
Now -
Hugo says: “the 'information'” [the formulated, specified, complex, coded information that is present in every living cell - the equivalent of 1,000 sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica] “is nothing like what we define as being information transmitted between humans.” Actually, DNA code is exactly like that which is transmitted between humans. In fact one part of the cell transmits the code and another part of the cell decodes and processes the information. It may be more akin to one machine speaking to another than between humans but that does not take away from the fact that it is a formulated, specified, complex, code that was in place at the first living / replicating cell.
In describing “the 'information',” Scientists say: This “machine code” is critical for information processing in a living cell. Without it being exactly as is - no working cell.
Watson and Crick, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,” 1:704
Hugo says: ‘Those scientists are wrong, and I’m right.’
=========
In describing “the 'information',” Scientists say: “The technology of information theory and coding theory has been in place in biology for at least 3.85 billion years.”
“River out of Eden”, 17
Hugo says: ‘That scientist is wrong, and I am right.’
===========
In describing “the 'information',” Scientists say: "We must continually remind ourselves that what we are looking at was not designed."
Francis Crick
Hugo says: ‘That scientist is wrong, and I am right.’
===========
In describing “the 'information',” Scientists say: “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”
Richard Dawkins
Hugo says: ‘He’s just a biologist so he’s wrong, and I am right.’
=========
In describing “the 'information',” Scientists say: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Stephen Hawking
Hugo says: “That scientist is wrong, and I am right.”
======
Rather than an argument from ignorance, the inference that I’m making is one toward the Best Evidence, or Best Explanation.
Eliminating Chance, Predestination and RNA replication does not mean that Intelligent Design is the winner by default.
That is not being suggested.
It does mean however that ID should not be discarded because of philosophical reasons or because your predetermined world-view doesn't allow for such an answer. Because there is no other means of creating large amounts of specified complexity other than by Intelligent Agents, AND because information shows that rival arguments are not workable, ID at the very least, should remain a possible contender as to the Cause of the evidence that we observe.
The fact is:
. No natural causes have been found that demonstrate the ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
. Intelligent Agents HAVE demonstrated the ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
We can conclude from those two premises that an “Intelligent Agent” forms the best, most causally adequate explanation for the specified complexity that is found in the cell.
No one would have a problem making this conclusion UNLESS in a very unscientific manner, they had, in advance, decided to rule in one type of evidence to the arbitrary exclusion of any other type of evidence. Again, a very unscientific means of searching for truth.
The atheist’s response to their hopeless situation? “We don’t have any information today that answers this question, but some day we will. And to us, a hoped for answer someday is just as good as a real answer today. Why? Because we have FAITH.”
That is what atheists are like. That is how they think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
because atheists don't have a complete handle on any divine concept, they don't believe. Believers in the same situation call it a mystery--knowing that our sorry intelligence cannot grasp divine intelligence. We have a taste, we see some, but not all and accept the mystery.
ReplyDeleteI'm about a third of the way through Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" so I don't yet have a full grasp of his entire argument for ID, but I can see that he is using scientific reasoning and is not simply saying, "We don't know, therefore God did it." So I'll give him credit for that. At least the ID crowd is trying to use some facts to justify their theory.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the ID argument as I currently understand it is that an Intelligent Designer is touted as the best explanation for how life got started on Earth. For that to be the "best" explanation, doesn't that presuppose that there was intelligence somewhere in the universe (or in the supernatural realm) before life existed on Earth? Doesn't that also presuppose that this intelligence had the ability to interact with inorganic material on Earth and create life from that? Given the lack of evidence for anything supernatural, it's understandable that ID is a hard sell for some people, although many do dismiss ID without even trying to understand the argument. ID is also sometimes unfairly put in the same category as creationism, although creationism has no science whatsoever to back it up.
Proponents of ID like to point out that only intelligent agents (no natural causes) have demonstrated the ability to produce large amounts of specified information. Doesn't that ignore the current results of evolution which we see all around us? Does the variation in the number of chromosomes between different species of plants and animals count as large amounts of specified information when compared to single-cell organisms? Or did the Intelligent Designer cause all the changes in genetic makeup that resulted in the variability and complexity of organisms that exist today?
If you want my totally unresearched, unintelligent opinion, I think DNA evolved from something similar to DNA, which evolved from something similar to that, etc. In other words, evolution extends further back in time than the existence of the first strand of what we now call DNA. (No, I haven't even thought about how it could replicate itself before it was in its current form.) But consider that at one point in time, nobody had any idea how one species could evolve into another species (or several other species). An Intelligent Designer (or Creator) had to put the first mating pair of each current species on Earth, right?
To me, the best explanation is that some day science will have a provable non-supernatural theory for abiogenesis, and that answer will eventually be accepted by the majority of the religious community. But they will still say God is responsible because he created all the raw material and energy required for abiogenesis with the Big Bang.
I’m glad to hear that you’re reading Myer’s book. I think you’ll find it a pretty satisfying read.
ReplyDeleteRegarding:
“doesn't that presuppose that there was intelligence somewhere in the universe”
Do you agree with the scientific premise that no Effect can be greater than the Cause?
If that’s true, considering the enormity of the effect we call "Life" or the enormity of the effect that we call the "Universe" well, Omnipotent seems an appropriate description for the Cause.
==============
As for “I think DNA evolved from something similar to DNA, which evolved from something similar to that, etc.”
What we know from science is that Natural selection begins ONLY after self-replication has taken place. But RNA self-replication cannot happen prior to the information that is found in DNA being present.
Our cells don’t just contain a place to STORE vast amounts of information. They contain a code, a specified, complex, formulated code (information)- AND - for translating that code they contain a means, a processing system which allows the construction of proteins.
Two questions arise:
. Where did the code (information) come from? And
. Aren’t we saying that proteins have to exist in order for proteins to exist?
If, as I think you are saying, that all of these systems evolved, then I think you are also saying that proteins with a decoding ability evolved BEFORE the protein with the decoding system itself evolved.
Both the coding and decoding systems of protein cells are made by this very process of coding and decoding. The code that is used to build enzymes is decoded during the decoding process that the decoding process itself makes happen.
As you’ve already read, or will read soon, Stephen Meyer says, “If proteins must have arisen first then how did they do so, since all extant cells construct proteins from assembly instructions that are already in the DNA. How did either arise without the other?
Intelligent Design explains this. Evolution most certainly does not.
“The synthesis of proteins requires a tightly integrated sequence of reactions, most of which are themselves performed by the synthesis of proteins.”
David Goodsell, “The Machinery of Life.”
“Without pre biotic natural selection it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first primitive self-replicating ribozyme.”
Joyce and Orgel, “Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World,” 35
Which can be sum up as: "I don't know therefore MAGIC!"
ReplyDeleteSome people, like Brab need answers and go looking for them
ReplyDeleteOthers, like Anon, are happy with slogans.
It shall ever be thus.
. No natural causes have been found that demonstrate the ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
ReplyDelete. Intelligent Agents HAVE demonstrated the ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
But of course you are cheating. "Specified" information means that there is a template first. Only intelligence would give you "specified" information. If you meant "specific", or just information as that found in DNA and all over nature. of course there are lots and lots of natural phenomena that produce information. Evolution is one of them.
Do you agree with the scientific premise that no Effect can be greater than the Cause?
ReplyDeleteThat is not a scientific premise, but some B.S. pseudoscientific charlatanry propounded by creationists. Have you ever heard of chain reactions? Those are typical examples of effects that go way beyond their causes.
You need an education that does not rely on creationist propaganda.
Intelligent Design explains this. Evolution most certainly does not.
ReplyDeleteNope, ID does not answer the question. It is just a lazy way of giving up on the problems. You rather remain ignorant of the science of complexity and of evolution.
You would have to show that such an intelligence exists. Otherwise, you have to see if natural processes can do the trick. We can't see any intelligence doing universes and creating life ex-nihilo. But we can understand (if we get the information from scientists, rather than from creationist propaganda) natural phenomena that explain the problems quite well. We have also witnessed that things, previously regarded as coming from an intelligence, had natural explanations. Thus, no reason to think that the problems of today will not have a natural explanation.
Again, produce that intelligence, and then we will consider it. Once you do that, we could ask how that intelligence originated ...
Myer's is definitely an argument from ignorance. Yes, I read the stupid book.
Brap,
ReplyDeleteID is definitely creationism and has no science to back it up. Read carefully and you will see that presenting hard problems in a book does not mean that science is backing up the intelligence idea. It only shows gaps in knowledge. This is a very typical God-of-the-gaps argument.
Creationists disguised creationism as ID once teaching creationism was found to be unconstitutional. Then they invested a lot of effort to make ID appear scientific to the eyes of ill-informed people. Yet, again, in court, good lawyers and scientists (some of which do believe in God), proved beyond doubt that ID was creationism in disguise with no science to back it up. Just tricks, lies, and propaganda.