iend also sent me a link to this awesome video:
Such an awesome thing isn't it? Discovering just how well organized and engineered the cell is has converted atheist scientists. Machines, templates and transportation vehicles consisting of molecules. Regulatory and quality check molecules. Precision and synchrony to such a degree as high as they see in the cell is enough to convince many that a God exists.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
Nah, if God designed us, he should go back to school.
Too many design errors ane oversights.
No self-respecting deity would do such a sloppy job. :>)
PhD in biomechanics. I hope he notices this post and add his findings. Have you met him Sy?
That's a very poor argument against "Intelligent Design". Basically, "It does not meet my expectation" or "If He's so great, then why do we see . . .?" Not very even-handed of those who use that argument because for their own beliefs, a common reply is,"Just because we don't have an explanation does not prove anything."
I am probably not stating his arguments as elegantly as he does, but if you are interested in an analytical view of the issue, I highly recommend his books. Just Google him.
Actually Dawkins says the very same thing, but it would still be useful for me to read what he has to say.
(Besides, do you have any idea how many cells of living creatures there have been over the last 4 billion years? That's a lot of opportunities for natural selection.)
Here is a simple one: When archeologists found spherical stones, on a deserted island, they immediately started searching for the former inhabitants because it was unreasonable to conclude that the action of the waves rubbing the rocks together would have produced even one sphere. When they found those crudely carved stone statues on that Pacific island, they did not conclude that wind erosion carved such details.
The things seen in the cells tell them that even the last 4 billion years supplied insufficient opportunities for natural selection to accomplish what they see.
Your "simple one" does not meet the test. Note that just because the archeologists were unaware of some non-human means of producing spherical stones does not mean that such means did not exist.
I disagree with your last paragraph. I would like to know the basis for that conclusion.
As for my last paragraph, even Richard Dawkins admits that the probabilities are "vanishingly small". It has already been accepted that cells existed before the earth was one billion years old and many, if not most, have concluded that that is too short a time for it to be reasonable to conclude that life developed spontaneously and achieved that much complexity all on its own by evolution and natural selection.
Nothing wrong with saying that they are not proof Larry, but to insist that the inference is illogical is unreasonable.
Reasonableness does not lead to unreasonable conclusions. In this case (conclusion that organism is designed by an entity) the reasonable conclusion is we don't know how it came about. It's unreasonable to invoke some totally untestable hypothesis instead. The inference is not scientific.
On the other hand, if we conclude that since we don't know how it came about it must have been made to order by God then we have no explanation at all. We can't even do a decent job of defining the concept of God let alone understand anything about God. So to attribute it to God is equivalent to saying "I have no idea."
Concerning the origins of live over 3 billion years ago. What is the argument that Dawkins uses to generate probabilities? I don't accept authority any more than you do for deciding truth. :-)
Dr. J. Gray, a leading experimental zoologist, has even stated: “The spontaneous origin of living from inanimate matter must be regarded as a highly improbable event, and as such can be assumed not to have occurred.”
If we go with the best explanation based on the most up to date data, we conclude design, deliberate action, creation. That explanation becomes unreasonable only if one has a pre-commitment to materialism.
"It's unreasonable to invoke some totally untestable hypothesis instead. The inference is not scientific."
1. How do we know that it is untestable?
2. Why does the proof need to be scientific to be valid?
As you have said many times, we do not have all the facts.
I know not on what basis others decide but as for me I prefer the scientific method. I never have complete confidence in anything that way but my error rate is reduced. That is, it works for me and has been one reason for the length and happiness of my life.
If you cannot think of any evidence that would make you reject the proposition then it is untestable (like string theory so far).
Another is personal experience.
Like spontaneous generation of life? :-D (I had to throw that in)
But I can imagine being able to test the proposition that spontaneous generation of life is possible as well as the proposition that it is impossible. That should do the trick. :-)
I sent a link to my biotech PhD Daughter in law to get her take and to my home schooling daughter as it may be useful.
It certainly shows beauty and complexity. But how real? how true to life? I am left wondering. At that level, you surely don't get those vivid colors.
Cheers.
Jim
It all somes down to this, I suppose. And this will be my last comment here. I have wasted too much time in these pointless discussions here on Gather.
As I have said many times, two experts with the very same qualifications and experience will look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
Some have a pre-commitment to materialism, others to the exact opposite and there are those like me, Sy and Larry who have no pre-commitment.
That is not to say that all atheists have a pre-commitment. I don't know if you do and I keep getting the impression that Farmer Slim has no such pre-commitment.
I'm sure you've heard the old engineer's joke that god must be a civil engineer. Who else would run sewer lines through a recreation area.
However, gonna have to disagree that it's evidence for a deity. And not going to argue about it, as I am poor at debate, and neither of us is going to be convinced either way. As far as essays by engineers you reference, all I can say is most engineers are not biologists, and irreducible complexity is quite capable of evolving on its own.
". . . irreducible complexity is quite capable of evolving on its own."
I read Richard Dawkins very well put rebuttal to Behe's claim. His one failure was the extensive extrapolations he used. when it involves a few molecules mutating to achieve a simple objective, fine, but to extrapolate that to exceedingly complex and precise modifications involving thousands of molecules is unreasonable.
There are refutation of those refutations, but those are not as well publicized. The immense radical, detailed, complex accuracy and intricacy needed is treated as if it is inevitable. They encourage the false notion that as long as they can come up with an alternative explanation, the alternate is most likely the truth. That view persists no matter how improbable the hypothesis and even if it cannot be tested.
They all make a speculation, then expect the reader to rely on circular logic to accept it.
He starts by asserting that evolution is "not random" because natural selection selects for function rather than randomly. This is true, however he fails to mention that all of the new stuff that natural selection works on are caused by random mutations! Dawkins himself has eloquently demonstrated in his books that the creative part of the process is blind. So it is logical and correct to focus on examining what is reasonably expected from these random mutations because if it does not produce the needed mutations, in sufficient amounts, in the correct amount of time, then natural selection cannot reasonably be expected to preserve them. This last fact is ignored by Dawkins.
Behe is a lousy debater.