The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

[rogue06]

Archeologists know when to stop because they know of the existence and capabilities of humans. Again, as mentioned many times now, in sharp contrast to ID. How many times does that have to be repeated?

Precisely. They are looking for signs of human activity -- something we can actually recognize unlike potential supernatural influence. That Lee does not understand this profound difference is... perplexing.

[lee_merrill]

Science isn't stuck. It's made impressive progress, developed an entirely new hypothesis based on a previously undiscovered chemistry, developed supporting data for it, etc., all since i started my PhD. There's entire fields of active research that didn't even exist 30 years ago.

But James Tour says "we have no clue" again and again in his description of the progress in abiogenesis, for example, in the area of protein folding, or in the interactome:

Source: Tompa and Rose, Protein Science

A protein can undergo both reversible denaturation and hierarchic self‐assembly spontaneously, but a functioning interactome must expend energy to achieve viability. Consequently, it is implausible that a completely “denatured” cell could be reversibly renatured spontaneously, like a protein. Instead, new cells are generated by the division of pre‐existing cells, an unbroken chain of renewal tracking back through contingent conditions and evolving responses to the origin of life on the prebiotic earth. We surmise that this non‐deterministic temporal continuum could not be reconstructed de novo under present conditions.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds stuck to me...

Even if everything in the universe operates by natural principles, there are some questions science may never answer. Maybe some aspects of physics are only apparent at energies we can't practically reach. Maybe some critical evidence is irretrievably lost in the past. etc. This is an accepted limitation of science. So no, it's not trying to fill in every gap with "science", unlike ID's attempt to fill in gaps with God (and its tendency to declare things that have already been solved to be gaps).

I agree that science cannot answer every question, and ID is not filling in gaps, but rather estimating probabilities of results by natural processes, based on what we know. If something could likely not be producible by natural processes, then we conclude a designer was at work.

Archeologists know when to stop because they know of the existence and capabilities of humans. Again, as mentioned many times now, in sharp contrast to ID.

I would say their primary method is to examine an artifact to see if it could be produced by natural processes. You're acting as if they have a catalog of items they search through for a match!

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hiding your keys from you is no different than God hiding Baruch and Jeremiah from their enemies. You sure you want to make that comparison?

Perhaps I should have asked you if you start out assuming that your keys might be supernaturally concealed from you.

Yes, and yes--God intervenes in the world.

The problem is and will remain being able to detect the presence of a miracle and to test it. Science just is not equipped for it. And your "solution" is comically unworkable.

It's quite workable, Joseph knew that his wife-to-be wouldn't have gotten pregnant without a man, when he was convinced she was pregnant without a man, he concluded a miracle.

Maybe instead of sitting around and whining about it, the boys at the Discovery Institute should get off their lazy butts and start working on a means for detecting miracles. And perhaps the reason that they have failed to even start on such a project is because, when they're being honest with themselves, they know they don't have the first clue on how to start.

Well, see "The Design Inference" by Dembski, and as I have heard, Behe is considering detection of design in his next book.

This is the difference between First Cause (God) and Second Cause (the means that He established to accomplish it). So one can say that God sends the rain and then explain the rain cycle, without contradiction.

This again smacks of Deism, I claim Scripture depicts God as being in control of events, not merely establishing means.

There are numerous instances in Scripture where God likens the Assyrians as the instrument of His wrath against the Israelites. For instance, in Isaiah 10:5 God calls them "the rod of My anger." The point is that God is using natural means to implement His justice. Sure He could have called forth the hosts of Heaven, or simply "poofed" a horde of unstoppable marauders into existence. But He choose a natural method rather than employ a supernatural one.

Well, yes, sometimes God chooses natural methods, sometimes supernatural ones (such as the virgin birth).

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But James Tour says "we have no clue" again and again in his description of the progress in abiogenesis, for example, in the area of protein folding, or in the interactome:

You are dishonestly misrepresenting Tour and the current science of abiogenesis, and dishonestly 'arguing from ignorance' to justify a dishonest ID religious agenda.

Source: Tompa and Rose, Protein Science

A protein can undergo both reversible denaturation and hierarchic self‐assembly spontaneously, but a functioning interactome must expend energy to achieve viability. Consequently, it is implausible that a completely “denatured” cell could be reversibly renatured spontaneously, like a protein. Instead, new cells are generated by the division of pre‐existing cells, an unbroken chain of renewal tracking back through contingent conditions and evolving responses to the origin of life on the prebiotic earth. We surmise that this non‐deterministic temporal continuum could not be reconstructed de novo under present conditions.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds stuck to me..

Again dishonestly selectively citing sources to justify your dishonest agenda.

I agree that science cannot answer every question, and ID is not filling in gaps,

So what?!?!?!?!

. . . but rather estimating probabilities of results by natural processes, based on what we know. If something could likely not be producible by natural processes, then we conclude a designer was at work.

No the probabilities of 'results by natural processes' are non-scientific, meaningless, and represent an unethical dishonest use of probability and statistics.

I would say their primary method is to examine an artifact to see if it could be produced by natural processes. You're acting as if they have a catalog of items they search through for a match!

Blessings,
Lee

There are only two choices that can be determined by science: Natural processes, and intelligent source by humans or possible other intelligent life in our universe, and nothing has been found by science for anything else, but human source of artifacts. Scientific methodology are not capable of determining a cause beyond the possibility of intelligent life within our physical universe.

[TheLurch]

But James Tour says "we have no clue" again and again in his description of the progress in abiogenesis,

Did you ever, perchance, consider the possibility that James Tour has no clue?

Remember the recent discussion we had, where Tour was hyperventilating about synthesizing sugars when the people actually doing research on the topic had already demonstrated that you don't need to synthesize sugars in order to get to the RNA world? Because i sure remember it. I also remember that you completely failed to answer the question of whether this was an indication of Tour either a) being misleading about they importance of sugars because he actually knows the state of the field or b) doesn't actually know the state of the field.

To me, that sounds clueless. You've avoided dealing with it in any way, at the same time you keep treating him as an essential source on the topic. The only reason you do that is because you like what he says. It's painfully transparent.

As for your quote, please identify the part of it that describes an area of active research that has consistently failed. Because the quote, as is, simply indicates that all cells are likely descendants of a common ancestor. Which, well duh.

I agree that science cannot answer every question, and ID is not filling in gaps, but rather estimating probabilities of results by natural processes, based on what we know.

But it's not. It's presenting a subset of what we know that is so small and so focused on things other than speciation that it is necessarily unrepresentative of evolution. Behe does so much cherry picking that he probably qualifies for agricultural subsidies.

ID does little more but declare victory whenever they knock over a straw man.

If something could likely not be producible by natural processes, then we conclude a designer was at work.

Why a designer? Why not an industrial accident? Why not some sort of contamination? Why do you discount every single other possibility, and go straight for design?

Solely because it's what you want to believe.

I would say their primary method is to examine an artifact to see if it could be produced by natural processes.

Then you would say wrong. Their primary method starts by determining something's age, and therefore whether it could be produced by our genus. Because unlike a non-scientific field like ID, archeology only focuses on things that we have evidence for.

[rogue06]

But James Tour says "we have no clue" again and again

The same James Tour who has also erroneously proclaimed that "there is not a scientist living today that understands macroevolution"? Something that I, an admitted non-expert, could explain in sufficient detail so that even a bunch of Middle Schoolers would have no trouble understanding it, can easily do.

Excuse me if I don't take his proclamations seriously.

Sounds stuck to me...

For someone who has repeatedly shown that he is determined to be stuck -- dare I say, wants to be stuck -- I am not at all surprised.

I agree that science cannot answer every question, and ID is not filling in gaps, but rather estimating probabilities of results by natural processes, based on what we know. If something could likely not be producible by natural processes, then we conclude a designer was at work.

How can they estimate the probabilities of something that they can not measure or detect? It is like saying that you can estimate the probability that X=Y without having a clue what either X or Y represent.

I would say their primary method is to examine an artifact to see if it could be produced by natural processes. You're acting as if they have a catalog of items they search through for a match!

I would say that TL has more than adequately dismantled this particular assertion of yours.

[lee_merrill]

Remember the recent discussion we had, where Tour was hyperventilating about synthesizing sugars when the people actually doing research on the topic had already demonstrated that you don't need to synthesize sugars in order to get to the RNA world? Because i sure remember it. I also remember that you completely failed to answer the question of whether this was an indication of Tour either a) being misleading about they importance of sugars because he actually knows the state of the field or b) doesn't actually know the state of the field.

And I concluded in response that Tour is discussing the origin of the first cell.

As for your quote, please identify the part of it that describes an area of active research that has consistently failed. Because the quote, as is, simply indicates that all cells are likely descendants of a common ancestor. Which, well duh.

"We surmise that this non‐deterministic temporal continuum could not be reconstructed de novo under present conditions."

But it's not. It's presenting a subset of what we know that is so small and so focused on things other than speciation that it is necessarily unrepresentative of evolution.

Behe focuses on microbiology, and does so in general terms, where two new protein-protein interactions was said to be the edge of evolution. This has implications across the spectrum of biology, including speciation.

Why a designer? Why not an industrial accident? Why not some sort of contamination? Why do you discount every single other possibility, and go straight for design?

Because I'm speaking, like Behe, of objects that have "a purposeful arrangement of parts."

Then you would say wrong. Their primary method starts by determining something's age, and therefore whether it could be produced by our genus. Because unlike a non-scientific field like ID, archeology only focuses on things that we have evidence for.

And I think you are wrong to ignore the aspect of considering if something could be made by natural processes. And there is evidence for a supernatural designer! All you have to do is try to rebuild and reinhabit Babylon, as I mentioned previously. This has been tried, even, and all attempts have failed.

“Therefore the desert creatures will live there along with the jackals;
The ostriches also will live in it,
And it will never again be inhabited
Or dwelt in from generation to generation.
As when God overthrew Sodom
And Gomorrah with its neighbors,” declares the LORD,
“No man will live there,
Nor will any son of man reside in it." (Jer. 50:39–40)

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

And I concluded in response that Tour is discussing the origin of the first cell.

By which point the spontaneous synthesis of sugars is irrelevant, because you'd already have catalytic RNAs. Tour is making a nonsense argument.

"We surmise that this non‐deterministic temporal continuum could not be reconstructed de novo under present conditions."

Yeah, current conditions would do not match the ones that the first cells formed under. Again, so?

Behe focuses on microbiology, and does so in general terms, where two new protein-protein interactions was said to be the edge of evolution. This has implications across the spectrum of biology, including speciation.

No, he doesn't. One, he claims to have found the edge of evolution while ignoring known mechanisms of evolution, like drift, weak selection, non-lethal selective conditions, the formation or alteration of protein-DNA interactions, etc. etc. And he provides no evidence that the formation of new protein-protein is essential for speciation.

It's a complete nonsense argument.

Because I'm speaking, like Behe, of objects that have "a purposeful arrangement of parts."

Except we know systems like that can evolve. Do i need to find the link to the proteasome discussion again to remind you that you stated a complex, multiprotein complex could evolve? Because you did.

And I think you are wrong to ignore the aspect of considering if something could be made by natural processes.

I never said they did. I said any consideration of that is secondary to the consideration of whether something that we know existed - the genus Homo - could have produced the object.

And there is evidence for a supernatural designer! All you have to do is try to rebuild and reinhabit Babylon, as I mentioned previously.

Not scientific evidence. Believe whatever you want, just call it what it is: theology. If you did that, you wouldn't get a single complaint out of me.

[Electric Skeptic]

Going back to Galileo (which was a much more complicated affair than most think) on through many large discoveries, there have been those who have taken that view. I posted on this awhile back. Let me see if that is still around....


Nothing on Tweb, but found a version I posted in 2016 on another website



Moreover, the claim that this or that scientific discovery leads to atheism has been around nearly as long as science -- and maybe longer^[1]. History has repeatedly shown that many scientific advances are treated as attacks on religion in some quarters.

Perhaps you are familiar with Galileo Galilei and the fuss raised when he started showing that the earth moved around the sun and not the other way around as so many Christians were positive that the Bible clearly and plainly taught.

Copernicus’ theories and Galileo’s discoveries were savagely attacked in this manner:

• "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

• "To affirm that the sun … is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting Scriptures."

• "His pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation."

• "The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves."

• "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon… This fool (or “man”) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scriptures tell us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

There was a similar, though much less vehement reaction to Descartes according to the New Cambridge Modern History, IV, p.139:

Blaise Pascal's declared that, "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God."

In a letter to a Christian Philipp in early December of 1679 Gottfried Leibniz wrote, "As for Descartes' philosophy, about which you ask my opinion, I am wary of saying absolutely that it leads to atheism," indicating that he certainly thought it did but did not want to say that it unquestionably did so and which according to Phillipp was a walking back of a previous statement^[2]

Jacobus Triglandius was accusing Cartesianism as being used by atheists to justify their position in Leiden causing the university to forbid its teaching and declare that only Aristoleanian philosophy would be taught there. IIRC it was due to Adriaan Heereboord's adamant defense of Cartesianism that helped to eventually reverse this decision.

Descartes didn't help his case with his remarks in his Letter to the Faculty of Theology of Paris when he said that, "Thus few people engage in the search for truth, and many, who wish to acquire a reputation as clever thinkers, bend all their efforts to arrogant opposition to the most obvious truths." While completely innocent to us they were seen, especially the "arrogant opposition to the most obvious truths" line, as being a direct attack on Scripture and IIRC quoted by atheistic thinkers when they sought to justify their views.



When Newton published his Laws of Gravity they were condemned as being anti-God and promoting atheism in some quarters. They were considered “evil” by some pious Christians because it took from God the direct action on His works so constantly ascribed to Him in Scripture – like "hanging" the earth and "guiding" the sun, moon and stars – and exchanged the truth of God’s direct action on His works for the “lie” of mere material mechanism.

IOW, they accused Newton of substituting Gravity for God and astronomers were cautioned that they should look to the Bible and not the "Principia" before they aim their telescopes

In 1724 John Hutchinson^[3], professor at Cambridge, published his "Moses' Principia," a system of philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory as "atheistic," and, according to the The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science, p.504:

Hutchinson led the way for similar attacks by such Church teachers as George Horne (a Vice-Chancellor of Oxford), Duncan Forbes (Lord President of the Scottish Sessions)^[4], and William Jones of Nayland (pamphlet ally of Edmund Burke and an an influential theological writer "who systematically picked apart Newton's concept of gravitational attraction in order to uphold his own insistence that such power could be exerted only by God").

In 1796, the Gentleman's Magazine noted that "Hutchinsonianism" (which claimed that Newton had reduced God to matter and rendered revelation superfluous) was "hourly gaining ground." Around this time the influence of Hutchinsonian leanings of the Scottish Episcopalian clergy influenced the entries on natural philosophy in early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

John Wesley, the most prominent and influential founder of the evangelical movement known as Methodism, also expressed a distrust of Newton’s demonstrations revealing his interest in "Hutchinsonianism," which was a bit odd since it appealed mostly to certain High Church Anglicans. It seems that Wesley, who struggled with his understanding of the cosmos and of the Old Testament's account of it, saw in Hutchinson's efforts a similar effort.

In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian theory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some little consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. Leibniz suspected that Newton was an atheist malgré lui, unable to see the conclusions to his own arguments although I wonder if some of his opposition was fueled by their vehement fight over who came up with calculus.

The eminent Puritan theologian John Owens declared that Newton’s discoveries are, "built on fallible phenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture." After the beginning of the 18th century – long after Newton’s demonstrations – Boussuet, the great Bishop of Meaux, possibly the foremost theologian that France ever produced, declared Copernicus’ ideas contrary to Scripture

Newton himself was concerned that his laws of motion would be used to devise anti-Scriptural theories concerning the origin of the Earth and Solar System – which is precisely what William Whiston, who succeeded Newton in the Lucasian chair at Cambridge, and others would do.

Supposedly Pierre-Simon de Laplace (mathematician and astronomer whose work was crucial to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics though best known for his investigations into the stability of the solar system) while explaining Newton’s theory concerning the origin of the Solar System to Napoleon (a former pupil, and before he became Emperor) was asked by Napoleon about the role of God and replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" ("I have no need for that hypothesis"). Even if this quote is apocryphal in nature it still betrays an attitude or at the very least a fear that it led to atheism.



On a lesser scale the Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius (considered the founder of modern human anatomy) touched off a firestorm of controversy in 1524 over the "Adam's Rib Controversy" when he contested Church doctrine by demonstrating that the human males and the females have an equal number of ribs in his De humani corporis fabrica ("On the fabric of the human body in seven books") in supposed contradiction of Genesis 2:21.

While he was never persecuted for this, or like Galileo forced to face the Inquisition (despite claims of some later historians), it still appears that Vesalius, under pressure from the Catholic Church (where some there called him the "Luther of physicians" and appear to claim he was an atheist), felt compelled to leave Italy to become medical advisor to the kings of Spain, Charles V and Philip II.



Even Ben Franklin’s invention the lightning rod was condemned in some quarters as an insult to God, for the Bible says God "sends forth lightning ... He covers His hands with lightning. And commands it to strike the mark. Its noise declares His presence ... Under the whole heaven He lets it loose ... Whether for correction, or for His world - or for His loving kindness. He causes it to happen." (Job 36:27-33; 37:1-13; 38:35). His invention diminished “God’s power,” and the direct action of punishment, which is constantly ascribed to God in Scripture.

Franklin himself was described as an “arch-infidel” because of his invention, and the 1755 Earthquake in America was widely ascribed to the erection of "iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin."

In a later response to John Winthrop, who had demolished several of his initial claims and complaints, Prince wrote a letter to the Boston Gazette which was published in January, 26 1756 where he said:

So it seems clear that for Prince the main concern isn't a scientific disagreement ("I am yet uncertain about their Influence in Earthquakes"), as some apologists have recently suggested but rather that it might offend God.

And John Adams, the 2nd president of the U.S., wrote in in his diary in December of 1758 of a discussion he had concerning lightning rods with a Bostonian saying that "He began to prate upon the presumption of philosophy in erecting iron rods to draw the lightning from the clouds. He railed and foamed against the points and the presumption that erected them. He talked of presuming upon God, as Peter attempted to walk upon the water, and of attempting to control the artillery of heaven."

This again shows a religious concern -- that Franklin was "presuming upon God" by "attempting to control the artillery of heaven."

This is further reflected by the resistance various churches and cathedrals had to placing lightning rods, often referred by them as "the heretical rod," to their spires despite repeatedly being damaged. But eventually, and only when many churches were saved from damage by lightning because of lightning rods did criticism finally begin to waver.


The point being that science has been accused of promoting atheism as well as used by some atheists to justify their view since the founding of modern science. I suppose your solution is to chuck it all and go back to bleeding people when they got sick to remove the "bad humors" or maybe finding someone and accusing them of witchcraft.






1. I wouldn't doubt that the first caveman who discovered how to make fire was accused by someone of causing people to disbelieve in "Og the Fire-giver" or whatever

2. In the letter to which Leibniz was replying to, Philipp who stated, "I remember, Sir, when we were at Mr Pufendorf's house once, that you stated quite firmly that Mr Descartes' principles lead to atheism. But as I no longer remember the steps of this argument, I implore you to be kind enough to refresh my memory of them."

3. Who described Newton's Principia as that "Cobweb of Circles and Lines to catch Flies in"

4. At least early on

Excellent post of which I may well steal chunks. Thanks for it.

[rogue06]

No, he doesn't. One, he claims to have found the edge of evolution while ignoring known mechanisms of evolution, like drift, weak selection, non-lethal selective conditions, the formation or alteration of protein-DNA interactions, etc. etc. And he provides no evidence that the formation of new protein-protein is essential for speciation.

I've been wondering if the reason that some of these folks insist on referring to biological evolution as "Darwinism" because they can then ignore the past 160 years of research and study that brought us things like the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift), developmental evolution (evo-devo), Epigenetics, and horizontal gene transfer, and focus on what was thought back during the second half of the 19th cent.

After all, when was the last time you heard gravitational theory called "Newtonism," atomic theory referred to as "Daltonism," geology as "Lyellism," or physics as "Kelvinism."

[rogue06]

Excellent post of which I may well steal chunks. Thanks for it.

I picked up a wee bit more concerning Descartes, Newton and Franklin while reading up on the history of modern science. I'll just copy pasta it from notes I took:

• According to noted historian of science Ronald Numbers, in his .Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian beliefs, this isn't the only time Descartes was in this sort of trouble in that he had also "acquired considerable notoriety for nearly pushing God out of the cosmos altogether. His pious countryman Blaise Pascal (1627-91) accused Descartes, somewhat unfairly, of trying to dispense with God altogether, according Him only 'a flip of the finger in order to set the world in motion.' Fearing clerical retribution in the years after Galileo's trial, Descartes disingenuously declared his own cosmology to be 'absolutely false'"
• While visiting Napoleon Bonaparte at the latter's country estate in 1802, Laplace told his host about his so-called nebular theory for the formation of the Solar System. When Napoleon asked why he heard nothing about God's role, Laplace supposedly replied "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." The only first-hand report of the account merely records that Napoleon was disappointed w/ Laplace's explanation "that a chain of natural causes would account for the construction and preservation of the wonderful system." And Laplace was attacked for his, what Ronald Numbers calls "his transparently atheistic science," especially in the English-speaking world which distrusted French science's tendency toward "Godless materialism."
• Leibniz and Huygens raised suspicion that the Newtonian system hinted of atheism in its attempt to derive all of the phenomena of nature from a basic set of laws and to do so without appeal to direct divine action
• When a French cleric, Jean-Antoine Nollet, denounced lightning rods as an inappropriate means of thwarting God's will, Franklin wrote to a friend that "he speaks as if he thought it presumption of man to propose guarding himself against the thunders of Heaven. Surely the thunders of Heaven is no more supernatural than the rain, hail or sunshine of Heaven, against the inconvenience of which we guard by roofs and shades without scruple." Some have wonder if jealousy played a role in Nollet's complaint since he had been conducting experiments of his own with electricity (he is credited with discovering the process of osmosis).

The second one, about Laplace, is more of an elaboration on what I already had.

[TheLurch]

I've been wondering if the reason that some of these folks insist on referring to biological evolution as "Darwinism" because they can then ignore the past 160 years of research and study that brought us things like the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift), developmental evolution (evo-devo), Epigenetics, and horizontal gene transfer, and focus on what was thought back during the second half of the 19th cent.

After all, when was the last time you heard gravitational theory called "Newtonism," atomic theory referred to as "Daltonism," geology as "Lyellism," or physics as "Kelvinism."

I've always assumed there were two reasons for it:
Present it as an ideology rather than a science.
Tarnish it by associating it with social darwinism.

But the ID crowd definitely has a very weird, dysfunctional relationship with the last century or so of research. Behe and Meyer both make a big deal about how it's "new discoveries" that make their warmed-over version of Paley's watchmaker compelling. But at the same time, they don't actually seem to like a lot of the new discoveries that have transformed our understanding of evolution. Behe wrote the entire Edge of Evolution without once acknowledging that there's an entire field (population genetics) that was relevant to the topic, has never once talked about genome data that i'm aware of, etc.

It's like science only exists to the degree to which it can be used to support whatever argument they want to make.

[rogue06]

Yes, and yes--God intervenes in the world.


It's quite workable, Joseph knew that his wife-to-be wouldn't have gotten pregnant without a man, when he was convinced she was pregnant without a man, he concluded a miracle.


Well, see "The Design Inference" by Dembski, and as I have heard, Behe is considering detection of design in his next book.


This again smacks of Deism, I claim Scripture depicts God as being in control of events, not merely establishing means.


Well, yes, sometimes God chooses natural methods, sometimes supernatural ones (such as the virgin birth).

Blessings,
Lee

Somehow missed this but the one thing that stands out is your apparent denial of the fact that we pretty much have things like the rain cycle figured out and can explain it from a natural perspective. For instance, this seems to put it at a level virtually everyone should be able to follow. Keep in mind it is an oversimplification demonstrating a process so don't try over-thinking it.

If you have access to it Derek Kinder in his commentary on Genesis, (Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary -- part of the Tyndale Commentary Series), he notes that in Job 10:8-9 God is said to have fashioned Job with his ‘hands’, like a potter shaping clay out of the dust of the ground, in the same way that Adam is described as being created. And yet nobody would argue that Job wasn't born of a woman even though God obviously did this through the natural process of formation in the womb. Do you really think that is Deism? That the formation and growth of the embryo is some sort of illusion that we aren't seeing?

[lee_merrill]

Yeah, current conditions would do not match the ones that the first cells formed under. Again, so?

But I don't think by "current conditions" they mean today's weather and atmosphere.

[Behe] claims to have found the edge of evolution while ignoring known mechanisms of evolution, like drift, weak selection, non-lethal selective conditions, the formation or alteration of protein-DNA interactions, etc. etc. And he provides no evidence that the formation of new protein-protein is essential for speciation.

Behe did not ignore mechanisms of evolution, instead he based his estimate on what evolution actually did. And new protein-protein interactions would be fundamental biochemistry.

Source: Edge of Evolution, pp. 146-147

With the criterion of two protein-protein binding sites, we can quickly see why stupendously complex structures such as the cilium, the flagellum, and the machinery that builds them are beyond Darwinian evolution. The flagellum has dozens of protein parts that specifically bind to each other; the cilium has hundreds. The IFT particle itself has sixteen proteins; even complex A, the smaller subset of IFT, has half a dozen protein parts, enormously beyond the reach of Darwinian processes. In fact, drawing the edge of evolution at complexes of three different kinds of cellular proteins means that the great majority of functional cellular features are across that line, not just the most intricate ones that command our attention such as the cilium and flagellum. Most proteins in the cell work as teams of a half dozen or more. If the great majority of cellular protein-protein interactions are beyond the edge of evolution, it is reasonable to view the entire cell itself as a nonrandom, integrated whole—like a well-planned factory, as National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts suggested. This conclusion isn’t a “God of the gaps” argument. Nonrandomness isn’t a rare property of just a handful of extra-complex features of the cell. Rather, it encompasses the cellular foundation of life as a whole.

© Copyright Original Source

Except we know systems like that can evolve. Do i need to find the link to the proteasome discussion again to remind you that you stated a complex, multiprotein complex could evolve? Because you did.

If there is a selectable path to it!

I said any consideration of that is secondary to the consideration of whether something that we know existed - the genus Homo - could have produced the object.

And I think the issue of whether natural processes could have produced an object is paramount. And who knows the limits of human ingenuity?

Not scientific evidence. Believe whatever you want, just call it what it is: theology. If you did that, you wouldn't get a single complaint out of me.

But this is a classic example of a repeatable experiment, you may attempt to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon at any time. I don't recommend the attempt, since previous trials have resulted in failure, Saddam Hussein's attempt being the most recent.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Somehow missed this but the one thing that stands out is your apparent denial of the fact that we pretty much have things like the rain cycle figured out and can explain it from a natural perspective.

That's been understood for a long time, though.

"All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again." (Ecc. 1:7)

If you have access to it Derek Kinder in his commentary on Genesis, (Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary -- part of the Tyndale Commentary Series), he notes that in Job 10:8-9 God is said to have fashioned Job with his ‘hands’, like a potter shaping clay out of the dust of the ground, in the same way that Adam is described as being created. And yet nobody would argue that Job wasn't born of a woman even though God obviously did this through the natural process of formation in the womb. Do you really think that is Deism? That the formation and growth of the embryo is some sort of illusion that we aren't seeing?

God is actively involved in the world, intimately involved, is the Scriptural view:

"Your hands made me and formed me; give me understanding to learn your commands." (Ps. 119:73)

"The LORD said to him, 'Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?' " (Ex. 4:11)

Deism is to say God is not actively involved in the world, that we should not for instance, pray for rain.

Blessings,
Lee