Pages

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Intelligent Design and Modern Science

Since universities were first founded in the Renaissance they were supposed to be places of dialog and controversy, but almost from the outset the university faculties were not open to challenges or input from outsiders, they were closed societies. Nevertheless, science and learning progressed even as the minds of the scientific community quietly closed. Early in the 20th Century Physics was declared finished as a field of study because Newtonian Physics was all there was – until Einstein and Relativity, but then that in turn was replaced Quantum Physics. But the scientists didn’t seem to have learned their lesson from the debacle in physics instead they have with absolute certainty declared that all psychic phenomena, astrology, ESP, Reincarnation, and Intelligent Design are simply superstition and pseudo-sciences. They have made these statements even in the face of some rather impressive supporting observations, but these are topics that are simply out of bounds as topics for a serious discussion but the resistance to these is nothing compared to the commitment the scientific community has toward Evolution and the Big Bang.

Even though the Big Bang is widely accepted by many scientists, it carries some very unfortunate implications, which makes in unacceptable to many in the academic and scientific community. The problem stems from the fact that if all of the energy in the universe was contained in some primordial pinprick or speck of something. It could not exist in space or time because the Big Bang actually created space and time. It could not have had tangible mass because there was no space for it to occupy, so this singularity really has no scientific explanation although the scientists BELIEVE that one exists. Those who BELIEVE the creation of the universe was an act of God are scorned as yahoo’s but the fact that both beliefs are FAITH based is lost on the scientists and those who scorn anything that cannot be demonstrated except when they believe at some point in the future science will find the answer. Of course these are the same people who accept Psychology, Economics, Philosophy, and even some science without demonstrable proof or repeatability so they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Intelligent Design and God. People like Richard Dawkins and other atheists challenge religion to prove there is a God without accepting that they cannot prove there isn’t. They fail to see that their position is as much a faith based belief as the belief there is a supreme being.

The other topic that academia and many scientists reject as a topic of discussion is Evolution. Evolution is not in their view a THEORY but a FACT so no challenge is allowed and no contrary opinion or questions can be raised and to do so is to be ridiculed and exiled from the intellectual community. However, there are some significant flaws in Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is that his seminal work “The Origin of Species” does not address the origin of species but merely reflects how existing species adapt to their changing environmental conditions. However, it seems relatively obvious that adaptation is factual and demonstrable but precisely how a new species arise remains a mystery but even that might eventually have a scientific answer. The real problem lies with the origin of life itself and this is where Intelligent Design enters the picture and where the Darwinists get the vapors. They not only get the vapors their explanations sound like they are coming from a stand-up comic.

Richard Dawkins when challenged to explain the origin of life, stumbled and mumbled and admitted that he actually doesn’t know how life began but that he is absolutely sure it began through some scientifically explicable process, a process that was random and absolutely positively did not reflect Intelligent Design. In the Darwinian World life began as a single self-replicating molecule that led to a single cell which led to pond scum and we are direct lineal descendants of pond scum. When Dawkins was confronted with the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule so this theory of his fails the first test of the scientific method which is that the hypothesis must be demonstrable and repeatable, he simple says that we don’t know everything but THAT is how it happened. The similarity to those who believe in Intelligent Design never even enters his head.

When Dawkins is then confronted with the mathematical fact that for the 250 proteins necessary to form the DNA strand for a simple cell to form randomly is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion or to anyone other than Darwinist – zero chance of happening, he resorts to the Theory of Pan Spermia. If this Theory were described by a stand-up comic he would have the audience laughing but the Darwinists and Dawkins really take this theory seriously. Pan Spermia is a theory that aliens from outer space came to the Earth and started life or alternatively some space debris crashed into the Earth and brought simple life with it. The fact that this does not explain the origin of life but merely turns it into a geographic problem is totally wasted on Darwinists who insist that this explains the origin of life on EARTH, ignoring the original question which was how did life originate.

As hysterically funny Pan Spermia is, there is even one that is crazier and that is that life originated on the surface of CRYSTALS. In this case man is descended from rocks, which I presume explains why some people are hard headed, others hard hearted, and some are just diamonds in the rough. Nevertheless, this is actually a serious theory being put forth by Darwinians in their efforts to avoid Intelligent Design. In this theory molecules on the surface of crystals began replicating themselves and evolved into bacteria and thus life began. Precisely how the molecules became self-replicating is attributed to – and I quote “some mysterious force” sort of like “May the Force be with you”. How this “mysterious force” is distinguished from God is not allowed as a topic of discussion because as any Darwinian knows – God does not exist and Intelligent Design is just a code word for Creationism.

The reality is that the more science explores life and the origin of life the more difficult it is to avoid Intelligent Design as an explanation. Quantum Physics as well as Molecular Biology are leading us ever closer to Intelligent Design as the only logical conclusion. Whatever the ultimate answer will be it is certainly clear even now that the Darwinians do not have the answer and that the Theory of Evolution does not have the answers.

5 comments:

Amber said...

"In the Darwinian World life began as a single self-replicating molecule that led to a single cell which led to pond scum and we are direct lineal descendants of pond scum. When Dawkins was confronted with the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule"

Actually, scientists at MIT have created a self-replicating molecule (http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html).

I would continue to argue with the rest of your statements, but it appears that you simply watched Expelled, and didn't bother to do much other research. I would suggest you try learning a bit more about this topic before you post.

Malcolm said...

Every single paragraph in your post contains errors of fact or understanding. You misunderstand how science works, you don't know what a scientific theory is, you don't know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis, you seem not to have done any reading of how those scenes of Dawkins discussing possible ways life may have begun were edited and shown out of context.

There are too many errors to address them all - so I'll just start on the first paragraph...

You said "Early in the 20th Century Physics was declared finished as a field of study because Newtonian Physics was all there was – until Einstein and Relativity, but then that in turn was replaced Quantum Physics. But the scientists didn’t seem to have learned their lesson from the debacle in physics..."

Debacle? Er. no. This is how science is supposed to work. At any point the consensus represents our best explanation of the observed facts - so far. Good science is always open to the possibility that new data will come along and require new improved explanations.

Newtons explanations of planetary motion, inertia etc were the best explanation of the behaviour of bodies in motion as observed in the 1600's. More than two centuries passed and new observations showed that in extreme cases (ie near the speed of light, or down on the molecular or atomic scale) Newtons equations didn't hold up. It took more work and the genius of Einstein and others to amend the physicists explanation to include relatavistic and quantum effects. But that didn't make Newton wrong. His equations still describe the motions of the planets as they always did.

That is how science works. Each generation builds on the work of their predecessors.

You could also benefit from looking up the definition of a scientific theory.

Royce said...

That loud clang was the sound of the Darwinian Mind shutting out any challenge or inconvenient fact. The article cited by Amber is fascinating because it states that this is not life but only a possible precursor of life but the point overlooked is that this is an example of intelligent design because the molecule in question required intervention. Relative to factual errors and distortions, I can only say that the intent of the essay was to point out how ridiculous some of the scientific positions are and how they rely on faith as much as science. It was not intended to be a scientific paper and the word "debacle" was specifically chosen to point out how "scientists" have a track record of making idiotic statements. Furthermore there was never any repudiation of Newton or Einstein, the point was that there is always something else to be learned and the current scientific failure to even discuss Intelligient design as a possible source of life is simply another example of their closed mindedness. These two attacks appear to be just another manifestation of the attitude that "we have the answer and any challenge will not be considered". My professor of Paleontolgy made it very clear that Evolution was a THEORY and I still think that is all that it is. I think much of it is correct but not all just as I think the BigBang is a logical explanation but not necessarily totally correct. In any case the main questions regarding the origin of species and life remain open and Intellignet Design may or may not be true but simply rejecting it out of hand is wrong.

Amber said...

That loud clang was the sound of the Darwinian Mind shutting out any challenge or inconvenient fact.

You have yet to give any inconvenient fact. Merely pointing out that we don’t know everything about evolution in no way proves that the Theory of Evolution is wrong or that Intelligent Design is right. It only shows that we need to do more research (which scientists are doing), and possibly that Evolutionary Theory may need to be altered at some time. But until evidence is uncovered that evolution can’t explain and until a new theory emerges to explain that evidence, evolution will stay as our best explanation of the data.

The article cited by Amber is fascinating because it states that this is not life but only a possible precursor of life but the point overlooked is that this is an example of intelligent design because the molecule in question required intervention.

Look at that fence move! Your original claim was that scientists have not produced a replicating molecule (and I quote “the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule”). This is a false statement, as I was able to show that scientists have created a self-replicating molecule. Whether or not they “designed” it is irrelevant to your first claim. The work was proof-of-concept that a self-replicating molecule can exist. Obviously, the next step is to find a similar self-replicating molecule that can arise spontaneously in conditions similar to those on earth at the time of the origin of life. I’m sure there are labs that are working on it.

Relative to factual errors and distortions, I can only say that the intent of the essay was to point out how ridiculous some of the scientific positions are and how they rely on faith as much as science. It was not intended to be a scientific paper and the word "debacle" was specifically chosen to point out how "scientists" have a track record of making idiotic statements.

Being able to misrepresent your opponents so that their statements sound “ridiculous” does not prove your point. Many things that science has discovered sound ridiculous or go against “common sense.” Some examples include: Stars are giant balls of burning gas far away in space, light is both a particle and a wave, normal people will kill a stranger if someone in authority compels them to, time is relative. All of these statements could sound completely ridiculous if you don’t know the science behind them, but they are all true. The whole point of science is to challenge our common sense.

the point was that there is always something else to be learned and the current scientific failure to even discuss Intelligient design as a possible source of life is simply another example of their closed mindedness.

No one is saying that science has it all figured out right now. That’s why scientists continue to have jobs! And in the scientific community, the fastest way to the top of your field is to topple an existing theory by finding evidence that doesn’t fit and coming up with a new explanation of your own. Which means that scientists have been spending all of evolution’s 150 years trying to find ways to debunk it, and will continue to do experiments that may turn out to debunk it or alter it. But the important part is finding evidence. Until Intelligent Design proponents can find real evidence of this intelligence, what form the intelligence takes, and how it works to create/change living systems, then it will continue to be ignored by the scientific community. Not because they are dogmatic about evolution, but because it takes actual evidence to give a competing scientific theory any weight.

Royce said...

I have never said Evolution is wrong – quite the contrary it is very clear that life adapts to environment and necessity, my position has always been that it is incomplete and does not address some serious issues, specifically speciation and origin. I have also never stated that Intelligent Design is the answer, my position was and continues to be that a logical alternative to life origin would be Intelligent Design and that this should be explored as a possibility just as any other alternative.

I grant that this replicating molecule is a semi-gotcha. I note that this paper was published in 1990 and while I read constantly I have not encountered this article or any follow-up. But my understanding of this is a group of scientists took two organic compounds that are non-reactive, mixed them, and introduced a “seed” molecule which then reproduced itself presumably until the host was consumed. Whether you agree or not this is nothing more than an illustration of intelligent design because how these complex organic compounds came into existence is not addressed and the environment was controlled. To me that looks like Intelligent Design. Of course the abiogenesis folks are frantically trying to determine how life could arise spontaneously without resorting to Space Aliens (Panspermia)

There is no doubt that science does not have all of the answers to everything nor are they likely to get to that point. However, science and academia have a long history of closed mindedness and the current Darwinian Crusade led by that oaf Dawkins is a vivid example of this. No one is allowed to question Darwin or Evolution even when that questioning is nothing more that pointing out that it is a theory and one with some serious issues. The responses here are excellent examples of this resistance to any questions and certainly any questions that might lead to a metaphysical answer.