Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 152 (115770)
06-16-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:45 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Hi John Paul-
quote:
True but we have observed intelligent agents design objects that exhibit specified complexity and we have observed intelligent agents designing information-rich systems.
I was wondering if we could maybe expand on your statement here with another example - cancerous tumors. Could we not agree that cancer cells fit the category of specified complexity, and could therefore infer an intelligent agent somewhere in its creation and/or evolutionary processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:32 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 152 (115834)
06-16-2004 5:28 PM


Hi John Paul-
I realize you're in a pretty big dogfight right now and that my post may be somewhat a distraction, but I would really like to get a ID theorist perspective to my question on message #96.
Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 06-16-2004 6:58 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 152 (115861)
06-16-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
06-16-2004 6:58 PM


Percy-
I agree with your assessment and summary. I was kind of afraid that my question pertaining to malignant tumors may be somewhat drifting off topic, and perhaps it may be worth starting another thread. Since it pertains to an ID topic, however, and since JP's rights are currently suspended for posting in that particular forum (and since I am directly asking him a question), I'm not sure how I might get around this small dilemna at the moment. Perhaps I should just be patient and wait until a broader consensus is reached, as you correctly point out.
I also fully agree that a working definition of "specified complexity" is necessary for all to agree on as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 06-16-2004 6:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 06-16-2004 8:38 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 152 (116080)
06-17-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:32 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
Hi John Paul. Thanks for your reply:
quote:
John Paul:
If cancer cells were cells unto themselves, ie not a part of an organism, then I would say that yes we would infer ID. However we never see cancer cells except in an organism, which we would infer that organism is a product of ID. I would infer cancer cell are a defect in the design. A defect that ID should be able to correct. How so? Once we start looking at organisms as a result of ID we will start looking at genomes as an intelligent construct. I believe this will help us decipher genomes and by doing that help us fix the defects.
That's an interesting take. Let me follow your first couple of statemtents logically. It seems that you state that if the cancer cells lived successfully outside an organism all by themselves, then we could infer ID. However, it seems that ID is often claimed on a multitude of events and organisms that are wholly dependent upon their hosts. The bacterial flagellum, for example, is entirely dependent upon the bacteria for growth and nutrients, is it not? Or a process that Behe has referred to like the Kreb's cycle - is this process somehow seen independent of an organism?
So how can we not infer ID on cancer cells in the same manner?
You further explain that since we know that cancer cells are, for the lack of a better term, cells that have gone awry, we conclude that the tumors are a defect in the ID product? Well my next question is, how would we differentiate between a defect in ID with an actual ID product itself? What is the mechanism we would use to differentiate a defect from an actual deliberate design?
And this also brings up another question - what is a defect in ID? An evolutionist might claim that a defect is a mutation event occurring. Would you agree with this assessment? If there is a program within the DNA of common cells that demonstrate ID, what happens to this program that causes a defect in that ID, which may eventually lead to something as harmful as malignant tumor cells?
To me it seems that cancer cells fit well with Behe and Dembski's ID theory. I have personally not run Dembski's EF on it, but logically speaking, it seems highly improbable statistically for random natural processes to have altered all the genes required for a functional cell to become a cancerous cell. Furthermore, the only way a cell could turn into a malignant cancer cell naturally would be for all the genes to change at once. So to me, cancer cells fit Behe's description of ID rather well.
Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:32 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 2:00 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 152 (116083)
06-17-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by John Paul
06-17-2004 2:00 PM


Re: Inference and Investigation
N/P. Hope to hear from you soon.
Opus1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024