A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

---

John Paul writes:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?

---

It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.

---

Seeing that we can only look so far and that your observations are being done now, we have no way of knowing how all we observe came to be in the first place.

---

We dig from the ground and ferret out from the universe around us the results of experiments completed long ago. From the evidence available to us today we form theories and deem them tentative against the possibility that they may be altered or replaced in light of new knowledge or improved understanding.

---

Percy writes:
The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything.

---

---

John Paul replies:
How do you figure? It does NOT answer how things function. It does not answer how do we maintain it. Well hey, there's 2 questions it doesn't answer just off the top of my head.

---

The problem for ID is that it removes from consideration such questions as you pose here. For example, you don't ask how various chemicals and compounds behaved during abiogenesis because for you the IDer did it and that's the end of the investigation.

---

Percy writes:
Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.

---

---

John Paul replies:
That would be assuming that Adam (& Eve) did not have knowledge of such things. Is that a safe assumption?

---

I was simply mentioning what's already a matter of historical record, that the less the scientific knowledge of any civilization the more common it was for the various natural phenomena to be attributed to the supernatural. ID is just the latest incarnation of attributing what we don't know, which has now gotten microscopic, to God.

---

Percy writes:
My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.

---

---

John Paul replies:
That seems to be a round-about way of getting the desired results.

---

Perhaps, but who knows the mind of God?--Percy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul writes:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.John Paul:
Nice baseless assertion. More evidence that evolutionists tend to oversimplify matters.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing that we can only look so far and that your observations are being done now, we have no way of knowing how all we observe came to be in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
We dig from the ground and ferret out from the universe around us the results of experiments completed long ago. From the evidence available to us today we form theories and deem them tentative against the possibility that they may be altered or replaced in light of new knowledge or improved understanding.John Paul:
That doesn't mean our conclusions are correct. Knowing how life started our evolved has no bearing on how it functions or how we can maintain it.Percy writes:
The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul replies:
How do you figure? It does NOT answer how things function. It does not answer how do we maintain it. Well hey, there's 2 questions it doesn't answer just off the top of my head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
The problem for ID is that it removes from consideration such questions as you pose here. For example, you don't ask how various chemicals and compounds behaved during abiogenesis because for you the IDer did it and that's the end of the investigation.John Paul:
That is not true and is close to being a blatant misrepresentaion. ID cares about function. And abiogenesis is a fairy tale so who cares? And IDers do not end the investigation because the IDer did it. That is just not a correct statement. ID is just like any other science. We observe something so we may understand it. Just because my car/ computer/ TV etc., were designed do you think it is OK not to learn about them? It wiould be very expensive to replace your car instead of your spark plugs.------------------
John Paul

---

John Paul wrote:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?

---

---

Percy replied:
It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.

---

---

John Paul answers:
Nice baseless assertion. More evidence that evolutionists tend to oversimplify matters.

---

I wasn't saying anything controversial. The same laws governing life and non-life today would govern the transition between them, namely just chemistry and physics.

---

John Paul writes:
That is not true and is close to being a blatant misrepresentation. ID cares about function.

---

Creationists might care about function, but ID doesn't. Creationists in general want to know things like how the Grand Canyon was created and how the fossil progression came to be, but ID is a philosophy whose purpose is to assign divine origins to unanswered questions.My comments were made in the context of Behe style ID. Investigation ceases for those things ID believes were divinely accomplished. ID would never investigate how propeller propulsion or blood coagulation evolved, because it believes they are irreducibly complex and therefore divinely created.--Percy

John Paul wrote:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy replied:
It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul answers:
Nice baseless assertion. More evidence that evolutionists tend to oversimplify matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
I wasn't saying anything controversial. The same laws governing life and non-life today would govern the transition between them, namely just chemistry and physics.John Paul:
However that is NOT demonstratable, not testable, not repeatable and not verifiable. That alone makes it controversial.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul writes:
That is not true and is close to being a blatant misrepresentation. ID cares about function.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
Creationists might care about function, but ID doesn't.John Paul:
I would say Creationists and IDists both care about function. I have not met one that didn't.Percy:
Creationists in general want to know things like how the Grand Canyon was created and how the fossil progression came to be, but ID is a philosophy whose purpose is to assign divine origins to unanswered questions.John Paul:
ID says nothing about the divine. Nothing at all. Of course that doesn't mean one can't infer the divine...Percy:
My comments were made in the context of Behe style ID. Investigation ceases for those things ID believes were divinely accomplished.John Paul:
That would depend upon what type of investigation you are talking about. ID would not stop the investigation into something's function or maintenance thereof.Percy:
ID would never investigate how propeller propulsion or blood coagulation evolved, because it believes they are irreducibly complex and therefore divinely created.John Paul:
How or if something evolved is irrelevant to how it functions and how do we maintain it. If (yup, if) something is IR then so what? Study it, figure it out and move on.------------------
John Paul

---

Percy wrote:
I wasn't saying anything controversial. The same laws governing life and non-life today would govern the transition between them, namely just chemistry and physics.

---

---

John Paul replied:
However that is NOT demonstratable, not testable, not repeatable and not verifiable. That alone makes it controversial.

---

Your original question asked what physical laws would apply to life arising from non-life, and I answered chemistry and physics. I wasn't saying or implying anything more than that. I'm aware we disagree about abiogenesis, but that would be a topic for another thread.The reason ID using IR is not a scientifically valid approach is due to the inability to define objective standards by which something is deemed IR. For example, Behe deems blood coagulation IR, but he doesn't really know which of these four categories is the actual case:

1. It has a natural origin for which evidence exists, we just haven't found that evidence yet.
   ​
2. It has a natural origin for which evidence exists and has been identified, but we lack the intellectual horsepower to understand it.
   ​
3. It has a natural origin for which evidence existed at one point in time, but that evidence has since been destroyed.
   ​
4. It's IR and the product of an IDer.

Added to this is the fact that there is no objective evidence for an IDer, which is much different from the Paley example of a watch found during walk - the finder of the watch is quite aware of people and their capabilities, and so is perfectly reasonable in assuming a person made it. ID, on the other hand, attributes actions to entities for which we have no evidence.--Percy

The whole debate arrousing Intelligent design is the fact that we have complexity in our environment, complexity is everywhere, in every form of life. Intelligent design is assuming a creator and looking at what he created and seeing how complex it is, evolution will always be able to explain almost every aspect of life, it just matters how far you will drift off from science into fantasy to give that answer, humans will always have a great imagination. There are many animals that it is simply overwhelming to the mind such as the giraffe, Bombardiar Beetle, birds nest fungi, turtle migration, armadillo, spiders, etc, they all fortell intelligent design, to realize the unity in its working systems is utterly amazing, thus posed intelligent design.-----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

Percy:
Your original question asked what physical laws would apply to life arising from non-life, and I answered chemistry and physics. I wasn't saying or implying anything more than that. I'm aware we disagree about abiogenesis, but that would be a topic for another thread.John Paul:
But answering with 'chemistry & physics' really anwers nothing because we have no evidence to substantiate that claim. Agreed someday we will have an abio discussion...Percy:
The reason ID using IR is not a scientifically valid approach is due to the inability to define objective standards by which something is deemed IR. For example, Behe deems blood coagulation IR, but he doesn't really know which of these four categories is the actual case:1-It has a natural origin for which evidence exists, we just haven't found that evidence yet.2-It has a natural origin for which evidence exists and has been identified, but we lack the intellectual horsepower to understand it.3-It has a natural origin for which evidence existed at one point in time, but that evidence has since been destroyed.4-It's IR and the product of an IDer.John Paul:
It's called inference and it is how science is conducted. It is safe to infer ID from IR, regardless of the reason, until a purely natural process can be demonstrated to accomplish whatever it is we now deem to be IR.Percy:
Added to this is the fact that there is no objective evidence for an IDer, which is much different from the Paley example of a watch found during walk - the finder of the watch is quite aware of people and their capabilities, and so is perfectly reasonable in assuming a person made it. ID, on the other hand, attributes actions to entities for which we have no evidence.John Paul:
There is no need to identify the IDer. It would make little to no difference on how that object functioned and how we would go about maintaining it. Sure if the IDer would just teach us about his design (ie give a ToK- transfer of knowledge) it would save time but sometimes the effort to understand something is all that is required. I knew nothing of Marconi when I was fixing my first radio and I knew little of Tesla when I first conducted elctrical experiments. Even after fully reading about these two guys it mattered little to my understanding of radio and AC.Then we have Stonehenge. We don't know who built it- sure we can guess- but it doesn't matter who built it to know that it was built and is not a natural formation.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Then we have Stonehenge. We don't know who built it- sure we can guess- but it doesn't matter who built it to know that it was built and is not a natural formation.

---

I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Then we have Stonehenge. We don't know who built it- sure we can guess- but it doesn't matter who built it to know that it was built and is not a natural formation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.John Paul:
Yup sure we do. Let's see- we have the Druids, Beakers, Wessex people, Merlin, aliens and assorted Neolithic peoples. That sounds like a pretty good handle to me- NOT.slp:
But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.John Paul:
The point is we don't have to know who designed it or why in order to deduce it was in fact designed.slp:
What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?John Paul:
Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Then we have Stonehenge. We don't know who built it- sure we can guess- but it doesn't matter who built it to know that it was built and is not a natural formation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.

​

John Paul:
Yup sure we do. Let's see- we have the Druids, Beakers, Wessex people, Merlin, aliens and assorted Neolithic peoples. That sounds like a pretty good handle to me- NOT.

---

When unable to respond with substance, post fecetious nonsense, probably culled from some Erik von Daniken (sp?) book. http://www.britannia.com/history/h7.html has some actual information, albeit very brief. You can cross the druids, Merlin, and aliens off your list. The beaker folk and the 'assorted neolithic peoples' are the same thing.This appears to be one of those 'I must post SOMETHING!' posts...

quote:

---

slp:
But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.

​

John Paul:
The point is we don't have to know who designed it or why in order to deduce it was in fact designed.

---

If that was your point, it was an overly simplistic one (say - didn't someone start a thread about oversimplification and it being a bad thing?).
The study of Stonehenge (and its 'brothers' such as Woodhenge and a number of other henges) shows that there is a 'traceable' history there. We don't know the names of the people that built it, but we know that they were humans and we know something about how and when they lived. We know that they were human because humans build such things - all over the world. There is no need to posit superbeings, wizards, or aliens.
And, again, what is the analogous 'paper trail' in anything biological that would indicate the intervention of some preferred deity?

quote:

---

slp:
What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?

​

John Paul:
Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.

---

LOL! I wrote something similar before:There is no proof that blue fairies push the sun through the sky, therefore, we should conclude that it is in reality pink fairies.Surely, even YOU can recognize a logical (not to mention scientific) fallacy such as the one you just wrote?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.John Paul:
Yup sure we do. Let's see- we have the Druids, Beakers, Wessex people, Merlin, aliens and assorted Neolithic peoples. That sounds like a pretty good handle to me- NOT.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
When unable to respond with substance, post fecetious nonsense, probably culled from some Erik von Daniken (sp?) book. http://www.britannia.com/history/h7.html has some actual information, albeit very brief. You can cross the druids, Merlin, and aliens off your list. The beaker folk and the 'assorted neolithic peoples' are the same thing.John Paul:
First beaker folk and 'assorted neolithic peoples' are not the same thing. To say 'beaker folk' is to specify. Ya know, like differentiate between populations of people living in the neolithic period. This is from your link"The best guess seems to be that the Stonehenge site was begun by the people of the late Neolithic period (around 3000 BC) and carried forward by people from a new economy which was arising at this time. These "new" people, called Beaker Folk because of their use of pottery drinking vessels, began to use metal implements and to live in a more communal fashion than their ancestors. Some think that they may have been immigrants from the continent, but that contention is not supported by archaeological evidence. It is likely that they were indigenous people doing the same old things in new ways."John Paul:
Yup there it is. We have a guess and it's a best guess at that. Woo-hoo, I feel better already. The problem is, was Stonehenge designed and built by these people or did they just live there because it was there?slp:
This appears to be one of those 'I must post SOMETHING!' posts...John Paul:
Then why did you even bother? And what about your link makes it the all knowing authority on Stonehenge?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.John Paul:
The point is we don't have to know who designed it or why in order to deduce it was in fact designed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
If that was your point, it was an overly simplistic one (say - didn't someone start a thread about oversimplification and it being a bad thing?).John Paul:
Actually, when taken in context (which I know is something you can't do), it is a simple point, but one you can't comprehend- so what does that tell us about you? It has absolutely nothing to do with oversimplifying anything. It's just the way it is. Good thing logic isn't required to obtain a phd.slp:
What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?John Paul:
Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
LOL! I wrote something similar before:There is no proof that blue fairies push the sun through the sky, therefore, we should conclude that it is in reality pink fairies.John Paul:
What's this "we" sh!+? YOU can infer whatever you want. Convincing others is a different story. How old are you and what is your level of education?slp:
Surely, even YOU can recognize a logical (not to mention scientific) fallacy such as the one you just wrote?John Paul:
So, tell me then. Why do I have to infer the same way and the same things evolutionists do when the evidence (obvious) tells me something different? You are not the Borg and I will continue to go with the evidence.OK, I should have posted this as an analogy, but you being a phd and all, I actually thought you knew of such-Here is a great illustration by Julie Thomas:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

To visualize how this enzyme works, try this very crude analogy. Make a fist with your right hand. Take your left hand and cover the fist. Your right wrist is the F0 components. It would be bathed in an oily layer that would be the membrane. Your first would be the gamma, delta, and epsilon components of the F1. Your left hand would be the alpha and beta components.
A few things about the alpha and beta components. The betas have a binding domain for ADP and P. When they bind to this protein in the active site, ATP is spontaneously formed (due to precise, maybe optimal, positioning). This type of domain is seen in other proteins. The problem for F1 is that once ATP is formed, it is bound so tightly it doesn't displace. That's where the rest of the machinery comes in. But before getting to this, it should be noted that there are three beta subunits in each ATPase. You can think of them as being 120 degrees apart from each other.

​

Here's the basic story about how this thing works. As I said, the F0 component (your wrist) is a proton channel. Biologists think of it is a "proton wire," allowing for a steady stream of proton flow. When the protons start flowing, they cause a conformational change in the FO near the gamma, delta, and epsilon subunits (your fist). In some strange way, this causes the "fist" to begin turning. As it turns, it contains an asymmetric feature that interacts with one of the beta subunits causing it to change shape. The result? ATP bound by the beta subunit is released.

​

Try it. Slightly extend one your knuckles on your fist and rotate your fist. As it turns in your left hand, imagine three spots on your left hand that would bind ATP. Everytime your right knuckle hit the palm of your left hand at one of these sites, a change would take place and ATP would be released.

​

Now, as the gamma/delta/epsilon component continues to turn, that beta subunit is no longer in contact with it and thus resumes its original shape to captures more ADP and P and "wait" for the next revolution. While it's turning, it causes the next beta subunit to change shape and release ATP. Around and around it goes, where each beta subunits is popping off ATP molecules in sequential circular order.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Describing this device, Science News makes it clear that it is not like a machine, it is one.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

"With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1- ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is. A movie of a single enzyme molecule in action shows that it spins like a motor to crank out ATP, the ubiquitous molecule that provides energy for biochemical processes in cells.......[The investigators] anchored molecules of F1-ATPase to a glass slide and - like putting a flag on top of a pole - attached a long, fluorescent filament of actin to the end of the drive shaft. By bathing the enzyme in ATP, the researchers made F1-ATPase break down the energy molecule and watched as it whirled the fluorescent filament around like a propeller. The enzyme puts out a very large torque, considering that the actin filament is more than 100 times the length of the enzyme itself, Yoshida [one of the investigators] says. "Can a man rotate a 150-meter rod?" The enzyme can spin such a long filament because it ratchets down the rotation rate when it carries a heavy load, he explains, suggesting that F1-ATPase can change gears - as a good motor should."
Noji et al., 1997, Nature 386,p. 299- 302 (summarized in Science News).

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Like the many IC systems Behe discusses, there seems to be nothing in the literature about the Darwinian evolution of the ATP synthase.the above was taken from Behe answers his critics- Nelson Alonso responds------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

John Paul: Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.

---

Isn't this like saying "Being that a contribution of supernatural processes (ID) can't be disproved, it is safe to infer that ID (supernatural processes) were involved".Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul: Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moose:
Isn't this like saying "Being that a contribution of supernatural processes (ID) can't be disproved, it is safe to infer that ID (supernatural processes) were involved".John Paul:
No. Again for the reading impaired: [b]ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God). And yes ID can be falsified, it just hasn't been.

JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?"
--The intelligent designer is outside of the universe, meaning it is not governed by scientific laws, not general relativity, not quantum theory, no laws of thermodynamics, gravity, any of it, and is thus outside of it and outside of time itself being the creator of time. Being the creator of time, means that there was no concept of a 'time' before 'time' was created, thus there need not be a cause and effect that governs actions or effects of any cause before time and space were created. As the creation of matter is a problem, the creation of a supernatural entity, is illogical.------------