TraderNik wrote:
Nice to see this thread finally dying.
Hardly. There have been 3,000 views of this thread in the last couple of days, leaving all the rest in the dust.
TraderNik wrote:
ID is now shown unequivocally to be Creation rebranded. In rare cases ID/Scientologists believe that the earth was seeded with life by extraterrestrials from Planet 9. The aim of ID/C proponents is to remake Western society in a manner 'more consistent with theistic ideals'. This transformation is unwanted by the majority. The practice of religion belongs in the privacy of one's home and within the walls of the place of worship.
Here is an article by an ID theorist. I challenge the ID critics to find any reference to the supernatural, any reference to religious doctrine, any quotes from the Bible, any hint of creationism or anything that is remotely anti-evolution or anti-science.
Life exhibits features specific to design
We begin by asking whether or not life itself owes its origin to design through intelligent intervention. To help us answer the question, we can look to examples other than life: things that are designed through intelligent intervention and things that are not designed through intelligent intervention. More specifically, we can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, we simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention.
(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense.
(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:
If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. In chapter 4, I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work.
Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??
I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for the design of life through intelligent intervention. While these reasons may be insufficient to prove design, or even generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient for employing ID as a working hypothesis.
(3) Concerning abiogenesis, Paul Davies also writes:
"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit that they are baffled."
At this point, we need to ask a question: Why are origin of life researchers baffled?
During the many decades since abiogenesis was proposed, scientific advance has progressed at an incredible rate. Yet research into abiogenesis stagnates. Why? Non-teleologists have faith that this is simply another gap to be filled with the same scientific cement used to uncover the genetic code and clone Dolly. But is it? The problem is that the very advances in science we have seen are not working to make abiogenesis more tractable, but instead, are highlighting (1) and (2) above. Thus I have an explanation for this bafflement - (1) and (2). That is, the same level of bafflement would exist if scientists insisted on explaining the origin of human artifacts without reference to intelligent intervention. In contrast, non-teleologists have no specific explanation for this atypical level of scientific bafflement.
Therefore, I maintain the failure of origin-of-life research not only supports (1) and (2), but is explained by (1) and (2).
Consider the following scenario. In the future, imagine space travelers landing on a sterile planet to colonize it. Upon mapping the planet, they find a strange object which is quite different from the natural surroundings. Upon analysis, it is determined that this object is actually a machine. From here, most colonists infer the machine is a product of an unknown alien intelligence. But some colonists have a non-teleological perspective. They pooh-pooh this claim and insist they need determine how the planet's geology spawned this machine-like thing. So two camps emerge.
The non-teleological camp sets out to figure out how geology spawned the machine. They are baffled, and the more they learn about the machine and the planet, the more baffled they become.
The other camp decides to reverse engineer the machine. They try to figure out what makes it tick so they can copy basic design principles and employ the technology in other areas. This camp makes tremendous progress as it builds on the design inference. After all, if the machine represents superior design, the colonists have much the learn from it.
As we turn from scenarios to reality, biology does indeed work by reverse engineering things to determine the internal logic of any system. Such insights are then used to develop biotechnology and eventually nanotechnology. Biology, with its reliance on teleological concepts and language pays tribute to ID each and every day. But it is not tribute paid with words, it is tribute paid with deeds.
It is not a question of merely marveling at the design of life, it is about wanting to better understand why such designs are so much superior to ours.
