Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists

You said previously

quote:

---

To the point where science meets philosophy. As long as there is empirical evidence to find and experiments to try it benefits mankind to seek the knowledge science can bring. Belief in your brand of god is a philosophy and its purpose is not to teach us about the material world. The material world is the domain of science.

---

I am afraid you would need to investigate this point further.I had saidTime is not space.The position of communicable thought is.One can be a synthetic biologist and a creationist.In fact it is probably EASIER for that to happen but not in the current research environment of US unis.LauraG wrote

quote:

---

As this field progresses, we'll be seeing more and more complex organisms created with specific purposes. What's to keep us from thinking this will eventually lead to the synthesis of fully engineered human (or human-like) DNA resulting in beings undistinguishable from current humans?

---

We need to differentiate natural products from purposed nanotech biologicals.Pleae investigate the artifical selection of it all else ask a particular in response.I was surprised how wimpy the evcers responded to what it might be imagined that we will evolve our-selves into. It seems you and I would do better discussing the object of this topical objective in that threa d where less would be at stake.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:12 PM

Okay Brad, I’m going to give it my best try to respond here.I think I’m getting the impression that you took my statement to mean that one can not hold a theistic philosophy and participate or agree with science. This is not the case. I am simply asserting that philosophy and science deal in different domains. Science is the tool which helps us gain knowledge about and learn to understand the physical universe we live in. Philosophy is the tool which helps us rationalize questions that are not the domain of the physical universe. It is important to note that I am not asserting that you have to use either or. A person can agree with or participate in science and still hold a philosophical belief. A theistic evolutionist is a prime example. The problem arises when people like creationists think their philosophical assertions about the physical universe hold more explanatory power than science does or will. This is simply not the case. It leads to the god of the gaps rationale and is the fundamental cause of the EvC debate.This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-28-2005 01:22 PM

---

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

Ok- but I did take some "offense" to your USING the term "biology".That is water under this bridge.I take it then that you would be against the "logic" of
Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM
but more in tune with Gould's Magesteria concept??
Gould's crack in a church vault/spandrel

I would say that that is a fair assessment. As an agnostic atheist I share support the theistic evolutionists while I oppose the creationists and militant atheists. Science and philosophy are tools that have different domains of utility. They certainly do not overlap. Theistic philosophy has no business making assertions about the physical universe and science has no business making claims about god.

---

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

Great, I guess.I would only like to note that Ravi HEARD Polkinghorne
in the UK and I agree with the latter when not also the former on Gould's use of architeture IN BIOLOGY(analogically). I think nanotech can change things but that only time will tell.
DIVINE ACTION: AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN POLKINGHORNE This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:56 PM

If you were without prior knowledge, investigate the design of a motor car you would start out with the global stuff. Black boxes called engine, carburettor, ignition. Bit by bit you would open these black boxes to reveal more black boxes: combustion, fluid dynamics, electricity.No matter how you push back you will never reveal anything about the personality and ulimate motivation of the car designer as to why he designed it (other that some global ideas that the designer was intelligent and that transport has something to do with - although you could say nothing about the route he designed it to take)Science opens doors alright but only of the natural. It cannot reveal anything about the existance or otherwise of a supernatural God. Science is not God. Science can only reveal how Goddidit.God of the Gaps is a fallacy arrived at by those who, philosophically, say that objectivism and empiricism are the only way to know anything. Except that that philosophy cannot be tested objectively or empirically!A bootstrap argument

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

I agree with this. Science is great but limited to the material world. It's the philosophy that materalism is all there is which generates statements like God of the Gaps. As I commented to Yaro, objectivism and empiricism cannot be said to be the only way to know things - simple because that statement cannot be tested objectively and empirically. It's when we get to boudaries that the question of God arises. Not along the way. First cause of the universe, origin of life are two that spring to mind. And science has nothing to say here. Presupposing that it eventually will has no obejective or empirical warrant - and is thus as much a philosophical statement as is Goddidit. Science and religion aren't enemies - they just operate in different realms s'all. In 1997 a survey in Nature magazine showed that 40% of scientists believe in God. I think this statement does those a disservice to those who are just as interested in how Goddidit as those who think he didn't. Whether God did or didn't do it is irrelevant to science which only attempts to explain the natural And there isn't a creationist in the room who would disagree with you. Their 'philosophy' seeks too to understand and enhance life for fellow humans via the vehicle of science. There should be no quarrel about what science does. This only occurs when folk (on either side) try to hijack it to undergird their philosophy.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

You suggested

quote:

---

The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none.

---

How do you repose with the following information-?

quote:

---

at ICR; those strategizing for the upcoming research initiative in genomics. Worldwide discoveries have produced a wealth of raw genomic data just crying for a creationist interpretation.

---

The Institute for Creation Research
If creationists put out the tears it seems that the years will bring something other than "none".

I will agree to a point. I have no quarrel with people like theistic evolutionists. They understand that their theistic philosophy and science are separate and distinct entities. The whole reason there is a EvC debate in the first place is that there is a grey area that creationists are responsible for creating. Creationists like to make theistic philosophical assertions about the physical universe. The young earth fallacy is a good example. When science finds evidence to the contrary then the debate begins. Ultimately it is science that is the authority on matters of the physical world and not theistic philosophy. In matters such as this it is prudent for the theistic philosopher to accept the new knowledge science has brought to light and reevaluate their philosophy. I understand that a scientist can also hold a theistic philosophy. Those scientists understand that they are separate and distinct tools. It’s really the creationists that can’t be objective since their philosophy is diametrically opposed to certain sciences and overlaps in ways that can not be reconciled without reevaluating their philosophy. If they do not then they are prone to pseudoscience like Intelligent Design. Yet there is this great debate. I don’t see scientists overstepping science and making assertions about god. I do see plenty of creationists overstepping the boundaries of their philosophy and making assertions about the physical universe. That’s why there is a debate.Long ago there were questions that man could not fathom science could be brought to bear on. Yet here we are having debate over creation and evolution. To believe that science can never answer questions pertaining to the physical world is naive and leads to the god of the gaps argument. Intelligent design is a perfect example. Although the prudent philosopher may reason himself a safer gap than others for his god, if this gap lies within the realm of the physical universe then it’s only a matter of time before science will be brought to bear on the matter. It’s happened before, it’s happening now, and it will happen in the future.We have come far as a people but our knowledge of the universe is still infantile. You can’t even say that your god is the first cause of the universe because we may one day find that the universe has a natural cause and is a member of a vast collection of universes. We may one day find we are but one dimension in countless parallel dimensions. It is only wise to reserve judgment about what your philosophy does and does not seek to explain. You should leave your philosophical assertion at simply first cause. This affords you a constantly moving goalpost at least keeping your gap just out of reach of science.This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-29-2005 09:12 AM

---

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

What creationists do is precisely the same as Scientism does. What's the difference between God of the Gaps and Scientism-of-the-Gaps? Not every scientist who doesn't believe in God believes in Scientism (the agnostic scientist). But many do. (athiestic scientists)The God-of-the-gaps is a fallacy. Science can only explain the natural which would by definition be a product of God - not God. There is no gap for science to fill. There is only a yawning ravine between the product and a God (if he exists) who made the product. To believe that science can eventually explain it all is Scientism. To think that science can go on forever explaining and discovering the yet-to-be-discovered is Scienctism too. No God-disbelieving scientist can say he know or can prove what is to be found or where the limits will lie. A theist may know but he to cannot prove it either.In the meantime science should be let stick to what it can do - not what it cannot. Neither side should comment.But there's not much hope of that

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Thus far every natural phenomenon has a natural explanation. No god needed. Evidence and experience tells us that as our scientific knowledge advances, the gaps always have scientific explanations. Creationists, on the other hand, have a long and illustrious history of positing a god as the explanation for inexplicable natural phenomena. As science advances the gaps disappear and their god takes refuge in the next gap. This trend should be sufficient justification to the reasonable person. I’ve found that each person’s philosophical belief is as unique as the individual. This, I maintain, is telling in and of itself. The only problem is there is no evidence of this being the case. If there is a god then why aren’t there any scientifically measurable miracles as evidence? At the end of the day there is nothing compelling to believe that the concept of god has any merit whatsoever. Then why are creationists so quick to label that ravine as caused by god. Positing god as the explanation for the unknown has always been, and may always be, premature. Science has proven time and again that there are scientific explanations for what we see around us. Until there are no more evidences to find or experiments to be done then the idea of some omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent, supernatural cause is not necessary and only served to stagnate acquisition of knowledge. We don’t even know if forever is actual. To give up the pursuit of knowledge because we think we have philosophically reasoned first cause is insane. Thus far I think I am very justified in believing natural phenomena have natural explanations that science will be able to ascertain. It has always been thusly. Nobody can claim to know. Theists may know, but then again so may FSMists. Without the burden of needing actual evidence any wild assertion may be correct. I think it’s prudent to follow the evidence, as science does, rather than positing fairies, leprechauns, or a god. And science can follow the evidence, conduct experiments and work to solve the mysteries that the theist can only philosophize about. If science comes to a contrary conclusion than the theistic philosopher in matters of the physical universe then the philosopher should stand down and reevaluate their philosophy in the matter.The problem is that creationists aren’t this reasonable. Their cognitive dissonance causes them to speculate that there is a worldwide conspiracy amongst the scientific community just to oppose their personal belief system. I have no problem with anyone philosophical flights of fancy. Only when they try to dress it up as science, call it Intelligent Design Theory, and try and force it on the public do I draw the line. If creationists could keep their philosophy away from the domain of science then there wouldn’t be a problem and there wouldn’t be this debate. How the theistic philosopher’s persecution complex can affect them so considerably that they actually believe that it is science that is stepping out of it’s domain to oppose their personal philosophy is beyond me. I understand that theistic philosophy was the first one to posit an answer to many of the natural wonders we see around us. Ultimately this is the domain of science though. As such, it is time to give science the credit it deserves and reevaluate theistic beliefs. If that means simply moving your god to a different gap then so be it. The debate is because of those who would deny reality and still claim special creation is true in light of all the scientific evidence to the contrary. The OP is merely one example as to why.This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-29-2005 01:27 PM

---

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

Are the Laws of Nature are a natural phenomenon? Science can observe them operating, can notice they are predictable and immutable but cannot say the first thing about where they come from or why they exist. And given that EVERYTHING happens as a consequence of matter and energy conformity to those laws, talk about a handful of gaps into which Creationists retreat is somewhat premature.And the silence from science in this area is....deafening All that the miraculous has to be in order to prevent science being able to measure it is unpredictable and unsignalled. If it is, then science can't set up an experiment to measure it. Trying to force an attribute of the natural world; ordered, predictable and onto all possiblities is unwarranted. You say 'nothing compelling' but that should read, 'nothing scientifically, empirically compelling'. To demand that everything conform to scientific study is Scientism - as you have no basis for stating that objective/empirical is the only way to know anything - other than to say much has been explained this way (but by no means the majority of what we see around us) I've said before that the natural is the product and there is no reason not to investigate it. Apply Occams Razor by all means but when Occams Razor won't work, the unwillingness to add more complexity which may lead to "there could be God" is a fudge. Laws of Nature? Where did the Singularity come from? How did life start? Answer "We don't know yet?" Fine, but lets not say there's anymore compelling evidence for a Natural as opposed to a Natural explaination. Not without some foundation for it anyway (and remember that like the stock market, past performance is no indicator of the future market) In going public and bypassing the orthodox elements of the scientific community, ID can hope to balance a somewhat uneven fight. TV programmers, keen to make programmes that sell (as opposed to programmes that are true) will change public perception - as will education in the schools. Funds may be released by, for example, believers who see that the battle can now be fought in the body science - instead of in the second class (according to atheistic scienctist) area of faith. Scientists have got to eat so will work in areas where funds exists. Who knows what may occur.A hellishly (or heavenly) cunning plan. You have to admire it for it's elegance..This message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 07:46 PM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Iano, someone's got to answer.Look at how confused they got in BioScience (Aug 2005, vol 155 no 8)

quote:

---

Turning to Mayr's findal book, most chapters are borrowed from his previous writings but with several new ones to pull things together. Most chapters bear on the stated subject of the book - the autonomy of biology as a scientific discipline - but their integration into a cohesive whole is often more implicit than explicit. Hence, the book reads more lie a collection of essays than like one long argument. Mayr also often refers to points he has made elsewhere, which may leave some readers feeling obliged to track down the other sources. There are also some poorly edited sections. One particularly jarring passage has Mayr saying, out of the blue, "Yes, God was the creator of this world and either directlyu or through his laws he was responsible for everything that existed and occurred"(Mayr 2004 What Makes Biology Unique? Considersations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline). From what follows, it would seem he meant this statement to express an idea compatible with those of early physicists, like Galelio, who accepted a superior organizing force beyond their theories.

---

Mayr needed to have said this to me in 88 if he didnt really want to respond to my question. I am glad he finally got it out.Now Henry Morris in Back to Genesis 201 clearly puts a question at the difference of synthetic biology from rocks or water. I think this is the correct division (hydro- vs hydrophobic) AND as he correctly indicates, it seems to me, is that the issue is a metabolism EITHER by catalysis or replication. LauraG has indicated that IF replication WERE done what would it change?I dont see you responding.I think it would change the relative amount of cyclic vs acyclic causal graph representations but because recursivity might be applied different first in rocks or out and then in catalytic structures or not (perhaps without retaining an ultimate division of ultimate and proximate biology without self-replications being referred to etc) it seems that Creationists could respond to changes either in creationist circles or out differently.Someone will respond if not just because some one will do it. Some one has cloned. What's next?I havent been able to locate this B->G but I got it already via snail mail. I guess I am just not used to ICR's new site.
The Institute for Creation Research

Why is it that lack of scientific knowledge is commonly used as support of theistic philosophy? Once upon a time we lacked the scientific knowledge that the earth was spherical and people wondered how the sun moved across the sky every day. Our ignorance emboldened the theistic philosophers to posit wild assertions about gods in golden chariots. When science was ignorant of volcanology theistic philosophers prayed to the god(s) so that they might be spared an eruption. If you want to take our current scientific ignorance and use it to support your beliefs then you will be committing the same fallacy as your ancestors. To assume that science will always remain silent in these matters is premature. This assumes that your god wants to keep miracles, as well as his very existence, a secret. That makes no sense. The only entity benefiting from that rationale is the church. I believe it is the forcing of god into all possibilities that is unwarranted. The fact is that if god really existed then it would be infinitely simple for him/her to definitively prove his/her existence beyond a shadow of a doubt and any given moment. Why hide in the mysterious unknown? What purpose does this serve other than to keep rival religions quarreling and the churches rich? If there existed anything else why isn’t there evidence of it? Why is it that all we are given are blind assertions and philosophical reasoning to go on? Why should I feel compelled to believe some ancient philosophy based on nothing but faith when much more could be offered up by your god, if he/she existed, at any given moment. I don’t see how it’s valid to leap directly from needing more complexity to goddidit. Occams Razor doesn’t prohibit complexity but it does prohibit making excessive assumptions. I maintain that positing god will always be an excessive assumption. You can’t compare this instance to the stock market just to conveniently remove one of the most compelling arguments for why it’s reasonable to seek natural explanations. If natural, scientific explanations are not sought after then mankind’s knowledge will stagnate. Positing god as the universal answer for our ignorance answers nothing. Everything advancement we enjoy today comes from seeking natural explanations. How is it unjustifiable to seek science as the authority to do what it is designed for? If I want answers about the natural universe then I will turn to the tool that was designed for that purpose and has the best track record in answering the questions accurately? I think I will reserve admiration for institutions more deserving. The separation of church and state is too important to let the likes of ID erode it’s virtues. ID’s thinly veiled creationist motivation can not be allowed to be given support by the state. This would open the door down the slippery slope that allows our own brand of Taliban political power. If private schools want to support ID then so be it. Just keep it far away from the real science taught in public school lest America fall farther away from the scientific and technological dominance it once enjoyed in the world community.

---

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

If ID can self explain itself in terms of this FORM then it doesnt matter that they get the probabilistic constiuents wrong. time tolls and tools... But if this is not taught as "science" then it would have to be that math""(what goes for it even in some "higher" schools) is not 'empirical'. Kitcher has written a book challenging that.I have gone from a thought where I used to actually assume that logical propositions DO interpret as being about forms to clear thoughts about what the consituents of the forms the propostions form are. I guess this kind of evidence is not what you are asking for Theus. It is interesting to trace in set theory and logic how Russell’s use of propositional functions have been depreicated.

quote:

---

Now I want to come to a subject of completely general propositions and propositional functions. By those I mean propositions and propositional functions that contain only variables and nothing else at all. This covers the whole of logic. Every logical proposition consists wholly and solely of variables, though it is not true that every proposition consisting wholly and solely of variables is logical. You can consider stages of generalization as, e.g
‘Socrates loves Plato’
‘x loves Plato’
‘x loves y’
‘x Ry.’

​

There you have been going through a process of successive generalization. When you have got to xRy, you have got a scheme consisting only of variables, containing no constants at all, the pure scheme of dual relations, and it is clear that any proposition which expresses a dual relation can be derived from xRy by assigning values to x and R and y. So that that is, as you might say, the pure form of all those propositions. I mean by the form of a proposition that which you get when for every single one of its constituents you substitute a variable. If you want a different definition of the form of a proposition, you might be inclined to define it as the class of all those propositions that you can obtain from a given one by substituting other constituents for one or more of the constituents the proposition contains. E.g., in ‘Socrates loves Plato’, you can substitute somebody else for Socrates, somebody else for Plato, and some other verb for ‘loves’. In that way there are a certain number of propositions which you can derive from the proposition ‘Socrates loves Plato’, by replacing the constituents of that proposition by other constituents, so that you have there a certain class of propositions, and those propositions all have a certain form, and one can, if one likes, say that the form they all have is the class consisting of all of them. That is rather a provisional definition, because as a matter of fact, the idea of form is more fundamental than the idea of class. I should not suggest that as a really good definition, but it will do provisionally to explain the sort of thing one means by the form of a proposition. The form of a proposition is that which is in common between any two propositions of which the one can be obtained from the other by substituting other constituents for the original ones. When you have got down to those formulas that contain only variables, like xRy, you are on the way to the sort of thing that you can assert in logic.

​

To give an illustration, you know what I mean by the domain of a relation: I mean all the terms that have the relation to something. Suppose I say: ‘xRy implies that x belongs to the domain of R’, that would be a proposition of logic and is one that contains only variables. You might think it contains such words as ‘belong’ and ‘domain’, but that is an error. It is only the habit of using ordinary language that makes those words appear. They are not really there. That is a proposition of pure logic. It does not mention any particular thing at all. This is to be understood as being asserted whatever x and R and y may be. All statements of logic are of that sort.

​

It is not a very easy thing to see what are the constituents of a logical proposition. When one takes ‘Socrates loves Plato’, ‘Socrates’ is a constituent, ‘loves’ is a constituent, and ‘Plato’ is a constituent. Then you turn ‘Socrates’ into x, ‘loves’ into R, and ‘Plato’ into y. x and R and y are nothing, and they are not constituents, so it seems as though all the propositions of logic are entirely devoid of constituents. I do not think that can be quite true. But then the only other thing you can seem to say is that the form is a constituent, that propositions of a certain form are always true: that may be the right analysis, though I very much doubt it is.

​

There is, however, just this to observe, viz., that the form of a proposition is never a constituent of that proposition itself. If you assert that ‘Socrates loves Plato’, the form of that proposition is the form of a dual relation,but this is not a constituent of the proposition. If it were you would have to have that constituent related to the other constituents. You willmake the form much too substantial if you think of it as really one of the things that have that form, so that the form of a proposition is certainly not a constituent of the proposition itself. Nevertheless it may possibly be a constituent of general statements about propositions that have that form, so I think it is possible that logical propositions might be interpreted as being about forms.

​

I can only say, in conclusion, as regards the constituents of logical propositions, that it is a problem which is rather new. There has not been much opportunity to consider it. I do not think any literature exists at all which deals with it in any way whatever, and it is an interesting problem.

---

page 239 in Logic and Knowledge . This series of lectures was given in 1918 at Gordon Square London.