21 replies

  1. We didn’t understand tons of things, but over the past 3000 years unraveled one by one. The origin of the universe and “life” will never be understood. As it was said at the celebration of the memorial day of the German philosopher Trendelenburg: “how can the finite ever grasp the infinite…”
    But that doesn’t mean rational people must peddle this “God”-thing, springing from their childish mind and used like a swiss-army knife to control mind and society. You can easily die without any figment of your imagination. Millions have done so before you!

    Like

  2. Wow that’s amazing!… therefore God.
    The argument from incredulity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

    Like

    • Wow it amazing how you misunderstand (again) my argument. We have stunning evidence of design in nature (those highly complex biological machines are just 1 example of many). Such design presupposes a Designer, which by definition means a will and consciousness.

      Darwin denied that design exists in nature. Ergo he was wrong, bless him.

      Like

  3. And it’s incredible how the kinesins feet make a marching noise as the move along the microtubules.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Another area that conservative Christians and Muslims can agree on.
    Good one Paul.
    Design and “irreducible complexity” ( Michael Bebe); and the moral argument-“ Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe“ ( C. S. Lewis) all point to the one true Creator God.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Yeah, amazing… We get it. That’s what one should expect from literally billions of years of trial and error.

    Like

    • No. Mathematicians disagree. We don’t get complex order out of nothing.

      Like

      • Ummm. You confuse “evolution” with “abiogenesis.” While it’s unclear how exactly simplest living cells (which were still complex anyway) came to be (abiogenesis…there are hypotheses like RNA world, Iron-Sulphur, etc.), it’s evident that we didn’t just pop up from clay or dust in the beginning, that we came through a series of trial and errors for billions of years (evolution, which math doesn’t say much about). You think problems with biogenesis is evidence for design? That if we can’t explain amazing stuff, it means it was purposely made? News is, intelligent design has a lot of explaining to do as well.

        Like

      • “You think problems with biogenesis is evidence for design?” Er.. I never mentioned biogenesis. Tell me, on your evolutionary model how mitosis comes about?

        Like

  6. Williams… You’re talking about math, and math is significant mainly in biogenesis. Biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (for which there’s more than enough evidence). So math problems with it don’t disprove Darwin’s theory. And again, this is the problem with ID arguments: they are NOT actual ID arguments, they’re just arguments against evolution, as if disproving evolution proves ID. The only “evidence” you’ve got is “ohh this is amazing… It can’t possibly have been by mistake.” Fallacy. And, there aren’t many less “amazing” ways the cell could have been and yet life would be the way it is, from which THIS way the cell is could be selected from, so that it’s so improbable that it had to be by design.

    On mitosis, I don’t understand your question. If it’s about how mitosis comes about in cells, then that’s elementary biology I don’t need to explain. If it’s on the origin of mitosis, I’m not an evolutionary biologist that I would give you a detailed explanation of the origin of mitosis. But still if it can’t be explained or there are problems with the explanation, it does not disprove evolution, much less prove ID. It could only suggest that we just don’t don’t how it evolved, yet; that our knowledge is limited.

    So pro ID apologists’ arguments: attack other alternative theories for not properly explaining the evidence, without telling us how their theory even remotely explains the evidence. And then they weirdly think that evidence against evolution is better explained by ID.

    Like

  7. Paul and/or Ken,
    I think it is unwise to use these sort of arguments for the existence of God. I referred to the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity above, but they also fit into the category of “God of the gaps”. The problem is that as the gaps get closed by scientific investigation the overall plausibility of God belief is reduced and religious faith is undermined. There were and are Christian thinkers (and I imagine also Muslims) who warned against this trap (e.g. George Lemaitre, the Jesuit educated priest who did significant work in cosmology: he was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion advising the Pope not to use his work as proof of the Biblical creation account.

    Also, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the counter argument of “unintelligent design”. This states that numerous features of living organisms strongly suggest ad hoc evolutionary development due to their sub optimal features. For example: the routings of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and vas deferens, chromosome 2 in humans, structure of the eye.

    Like

    • Andy, Intelligent Design has some very powerful scientific evidence. The examples are legion. See the latest scientific research:

      In Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, learn about jumping insects with real gears, and the ingenious technology behind a power-punching shrimp. Enter the strange world of carnivorous plants. And check out a microscopic protein machine in a bird’s eye that may work as a GPS device by harnessing quantum entanglement. Join renowned Brazilian scientist Marcos Eberlin as he uncovers a myriad of artful solutions to major engineering challenges in chemistry and biology, solutions that point beyond blind evolution to the workings of an attribute unique to minds — foresight.

      Foresight provides refreshing new evidence, primarily from biology, that science needs to open its perspective on the origin of living things to account for the possibility that purely natural, materialistic evolution cannot account for these facts. The book is written in an easy-to-read style that will be appreciated by scientists and non-scientists alike and encourages the reader to follow the truth wherever it leads, as Socrates advised long ago.”—Michael T. Bowers, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California Santa Barbara

      Like

      • Paul,
        “Brazilian scientist Marcos Eberlin” is a chemist specializing in mass spectrometry:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_Nogueira_Eberlin

        Here is a critical review of his book:
        https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1Z7N7SNPLCHXZ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1936599651#R1Z7N7SNPLCHXZ

        I looked into the insect gears example and found this article:
        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/this-insect-has-the-only-mechanical-gears-ever-found-in-nature-6480908/

        Malcolm Burrows, one of the team, is a zoologist:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Burrows

        The team is quoted:
        “These gears are not designed; they are evolved—representing high speed and precision machinery evolved for synchronisation in the animal world.”

        In my experience, whenever I do a deep dive into one of your claims about science I find they are based on wishful thinking.

        Do you never bother to check your links?

        On the plus side I now know more about Issus coleoptratus than I did when I woke up this morning.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The negative book review you linked to (is the reviewer even a trained scientist?) claims:

        ‘I would be absolutely intrigued and riveted by any credible evidence of design in living things’

        Compare this with a Nobel Prize winner in science commenting on the book in question:

        “Despite the immense increase of knowledge during the past few centuries, there still exist important aspects of nature for which our scientific understanding reaches its limits. Eberlin describes in a concise manner a large number of such phenomena, ranging from life to astrophysics. Whenever in the past such a limit was reached, faith came into play. Eberlin calls this principle ‘foresight.’ Regardless of whether one shares Eberlin’s approach, it is definitely becoming clear that nature is still full of secrets which are beyond our rational understanding and force us to humility.”—Gerhard Ertl, PhD, Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2007)

        Andy, the extraordinary molecular machines inside your body that make cell division possible in the video above are obviously designed. Only the willfully blind would claim this arose by chance/natural selection:

        The Cell Membrane

        Only intelligent design stands as a theory capable of explaining, for example, the ingenious invention, the cell membrane, that keeps every living cell both sealed against and selectively open to its environment. No cell could live a moment without this remarkable feat of engineering. It must have been present in the first cell. As Eberlin writes:

        ‘If you were to bid this demanding, multifaceted job out to the most technologically advanced engineering firms in the world, their top engineers might either laugh in your face or run screaming into the night. The requisite technology is far beyond our most advanced human knowledge. And remember, getting two or three things about this membrane job right — or even 99 percent of the job — wouldn’t be enough. It is all or death! A vulnerable cell waiting for improvements from the gradual Darwinian process would promptly be attacked by a myriad of enemies and die, never to reproduce, giving evolution no time at all to finish the job down the road.’

        Another Nobel Prize winner in biology is appreciative of Eberlin’s book and his credentials to speak on the subject:

        “I am happy to recommend this to those interested in the chemistry of life. The author is well established in the field of chemistry and presents the current interest in biology in the context of chemistry.”—Sir John B. Gurdon, PhD, Nobel Prize in Biology (2012)

        Like

    • @ Andy

      “The problem is that as the gaps get closed by scientific investigation the overall plausibility of God belief is reduced and religious faith is undermined. There were and are Christian thinkers (and I imagine also Muslims”

      Nope. Only in Christian Europe was this a problem. The Quran explicitly tells us to study the creation.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: