*In my best Robert DeNiro voice* You, you're good you. You're good.

You wouldn't be amazed at how many times I see the same errors of logic advocated by people who claim to be champions of logical thinking, because you've obviously encountered the same thing a thousand times before. Whether or not you agree with the scientific implications of ID theory or not doesn't factor into the question at all. Much like my favorite modern day philosopher/theologian, I accept the foundational principles behind ID theory, but even if I didn't, logical thinking is the one thing I know of that cannot be put up for debate, and your article is perhaps the best I have ever encountered for exposing the fallacies of those who try to do so, conciously or unconciously, every single day.

You wasted half of your entry on a non-argument. You said, "Whenever I was taught about evolution, I was told (1) natural selection fully explains biological complexity, and thus (2) there is thus no creator, or at least no need for a creator." You mischaracterization of the argument--science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, have nothing to say about the existence of God, or any other putative Creator. It is, as you say, a philosophical question. Evolutionary biology is concerned with the origin of *diversity* and not the origin of *life*. Scientists, like any other people, can offer personal opinions on the matter. There are atheists, agnostics, and devout Christians who accept the idea of common descent, and you might get differing opinions from each group regarding the origin of life.

JSW,

You said, "Whenever I was taught about evolution, I was told (1) natural selection fully explains biological complexity, and thus (2) there is thus no creator, or at least no need for a creator."

Recall I am addressing it as taught.

You seem to think the "creator" is only a question of the origin of life. Given the comments below, I can understand that confusion. But in the bible, the "creator" creates species as well, and it is that action being referred to here.

You mischaracterization of the argument--science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, have nothing to say about the existence of God, or any other putative Creator. It is, as you say, a philosophical question.

In one breath, you say I'm "mischaracterizing" the arugment, in the next, you agree with me. Of course it's a philosophical question -- that's my entire point. I'm talking about how evolution has been presented in the classroom, in my experience. I am saying, in my experience, it was presented to me as though it had something to do with the question of God's existence and actions. I'm not sure how you can disagree, other than try to argue, somehow, my experience was atypical.

Evolutionary biology is concerned with the origin of *diversity* and not the origin of *life*.

Technically, yes, you're right: abiogenesis is a bit outside (though relevant to) the narrow field of evolutionary biology; evolution is more a question of diversity than origins. I muddied the waters a bit by saying at one point "origin of life" rather than, as Darwin put it, "origin of the species." But, in my experience, they often are presented in close proximity in science classes, and often subject to the same questions about random chance versus a creator.

There are atheists, agnostics, and devout Christians who accept the idea of common descent, and you might get differing opinions from each group regarding the origin of life.

I agree. But, again, I'm telling you how it was presented to me. In an anthropology class, for example, I vividly remember my professor teaching that Darwin's theories explained variation, and that mooted discussion about God's role in creation.

Of course there are Christians who accept the idea of common descent. (And many ID'ers who do too.) You and I agree: the whole discussion should be unbundled from theological/philosophical questions as much as possible.*

I graduated high school in 1960, so things may have changed. I took biology in 11th or 12th grade, I can't remember which. They taught a little evolution back then. I don't remember any implication that this provided proof against the existence of a creator. In my own mind, I realized that it removed one of the reasons to believe in the "Old Testament" God, but that's all.

Interesting that you say that. After all, I said it was taught as though it implied there at least "no need for a creator". Your final statement seems to agree.

Also not sure how the "OT God" (as you put it), in specific, is relevant? Yes, can understand how it might disagree with a young-earth, seven-day creationist reading of it, but against any interpretation? I just don't see it.

You are right that whoever taught you evolution in that manner was being hypocritical.

I, personally, was not taught it in that light. God was not mentioned at all, either in a positive or negative sense.

I don't believe Darwin could have had any idea of the philosophical consequences that would come about as a result of the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Actually, I think that's not true at all. The narrative we've generally been told is that the evidence for evolution reluctantly convinced Darwin to eschew belief in God and become a materialist.

Yet I've seen rather convincing evidence from Darwin's journals that he was initially a materialist, and knew it, and was engaged in a rather deliberate effort to hide his materialistic assumptions.

Interesting article... I understand what you are saying - and I like your statement:

"When the science, we think, disproves God, philosophy is well and good to bring into the picture! But when science might prove God, we suddenly decide: "Whoops! Can't have any of that in here!"

So true.

So – you are saying that scientists should separate science that you can "test" with the scientific method from philosophy that cannot be tested - and perhaps that is true. But if that is the case, then scientists may as well forget discovering our origins - ever. Because the evolution of life (the actual random assembly of amino acids into complex proteins that randomly formed the first DNA strand - the most complex molecule known to man) CANNOT be tested. So we are left with philosophy - either evolutionary or intelligent design. So either scientists give up and accept that they have to deal with philosophy or relent to the philosophers.

I think they should apply the same "dotted line" techniques they do with evolutionary theory to the origin of life. If they followed their own logic based on sheer probability, they would draw a much shorter dotted line to creation than to random evolution.

They have to remember to apply probability (which they apply when it suits them): the odds of a structure with 100 parts randomly assembling into a specific functional structure are 1 in 1X10^111. Considering that there may be only 1X10^81 atoms in the entire known universe, there is not enough time for this to happen in 14 billion years - or atoms in the universe, let alone our puny oceans - especially when you consider that the simplest single celled life forms have thousands of parts that have to all be present and assembled correctly for life. Events with similar probability had to have happened several trillion times to reach the "evolution" of human beings.

You cannot test either evolution or creation by any method! It boils down to faith - in randomness (nothing) or God (something). This is why so many choose faith in God – rather than nothing.

PS: I really like what Troy posted on June 14th.

ID is an easy one.

Formulate a question like "If you had to choose between a stapler and a plate of broccoli, would you choose to eat the stapler?" Let's say the odds are tiny that a person would say "Yes". Now go and ask 10 people. Is it possible that one of the people might say "Yes"? Of course! You may have found the only human who would eat the stapler. Now forget about this crazy person, and go ask a billion other people. Chances are, they'll all say "No". But as we saw, there's still a possibility that someone might answer "Yes". Therefore, small odds do not require another answer. 0.0000001% is mathematically similar to 99%, in that neither is equal to 0%. The question thus implies that intelligent design is more likely (has higher odds) than the random generation of life-suitable amino acids. The amino acid randomness might be possible to calculate (because we know the structure of amino acids and the chemical reactions which produce them), but the intelligent design one is not (since the parameters are unknown). Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate (randAminoAcids < randID).

To finish the above...
It is not possible to evaluate ("Is possibility of random life greater or less than possibility of intelligent design?").

"Yes",

It sounds like, as with your previous comment, you haven't even taken the time to read and think about the post above. Please attempt to do so henceforth, before leaving comments, as it wastes everyones' time.

Please note that I define "design" as the opposite of "random chance". If a particular amino acid is found to exist, and we calculate the odds it arose by chance (C), then what, assuming we trust our calculation, are the odds it arose by not-chance?

They are simply 1 - C.

You assert no such thing can be known. But to the contrary, when you calculate the odds of something happening by chance, you are simulataneously calculating also the odds of it happening by not-chance, or intent.

Tim, Tim, Tim,

If I asked you, "Did you build your car or receive it as a gift?", is it possible that you might say "neither"?

The possibility of random chance and of intelligent design are disjoint. The lack of one does not imply the other. For example, it is neither by random chance nor by intelligent design that 2+2=4 or that HCl + NaOH = H2O + NaCl.

Therefore, it is not possible to say that Pi = 1 - Pc.

Tim, Tim, Tim,

When backed into a corner, condescend. :-)

It's no replacement for logic or evidence (see below), but, well, in a pinch, it's the best we can muster.

If I asked you, "Did you build your car or receive it as a gift?", is it possible that you might say "neither"?

Another strategy to adopt is to try to win an argument by redefining words unusually, or distract from their obvious meanings. As a refresher, right from ol' Miriam-Webster:

chance - the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings

Look, I've defined "design" as the opposite of "chance" -- indeed, that is what chance itself means: things which do not come about from intention or purpose. If you think there's a third alternative you're welcomed to name it, or if you think I'm playing fast and loose by simply noting what these words actually mean, you're more than welcomed to address that.

Instead, you introduce an inapt analogy, one which is clearly inapt because I can name third and fourth alternatives: you have stolen the car, or purchased it. But can you do the same with "chance" and "not chance"? No. You are clearly trying to distract yourself from the obvious, and wandering off into the land of illogic, where the law of the excluded middle doesn't hold.

But logic must be sacrificed so that belief may persist...

The possibility of random chance and of intelligent design are disjoint...

If I set up a problem where a ball will either be put into one urn or another, but not both, and not neither, then we know the odds of a ball ending up in either always add up to one.

But in order for you to show this analogy doesn't hold, you'd have to show there are more than two urns ("design and chance") here, or that the ball (an event) can end up having both descriptors or neither. So far, you've only attempted proof-by-assertion -- chance and design are disjoint, we must believe, because you say they are, repeatedly. You do not suggest a third alternative, nor show how an atomic event could be due to both chance and design or neither.

Sorry, that won't do here.

For example, it is neither by random chance nor by intelligent design that 2+2=4...

2 + 2 = 4 because we have defined "4" to be the symbol representing X X X X units. You're not even in the same problem space anymore, here, as you're not even talking about events, much less testable ones for which a probability can be arguably computed. Pretty desparate move.

Second, even so: how are you able to conclusively assert that the designation of X X X X units is not "4" is not by design? It rather seems we've defined it as being so, and we were, last I checked, intelligent entities.

Look, I think what you're really trying to do here is talk about the origins of logic itself. We hold certain things to be true -- such as the law of the excluded middle (well, some of us do, anyway) and the rules of logic (and mathematics, by extension). These things are fundamental to the functioning of this (or, I suspect, any) universe, or at least to our talking about it.

And you're doing something similar when you attempt to assert the laws of chemistry (i.e. physics) weren't designed or by chance, though this example is less stupid than the other, as it is at least talking about testable events again.

But note: to assert, in either case, that they were or weren't (or both or neither, if that somehow makes sense to your brain) designed or by chance is simply to assume the conclusion you're trying to prove. You're begging the question, arguing in a circle, assuming your own desired outcome in order to "prove" it -- a fallacy you've already shown you have some trouble understanding and correctly detecting.

You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

Oh yes, quite impressive.

But then, again, remember that my underlying thesis is that many opponents of ID are deeply illogical. You're not doing much here to undermine that case. You were simply parroting arguments you'd been told, and were apparently completely caught off guard when you found they didn't apply. Rather than admit the point, logic and rationality itself must die a painful death (painful for those of us who have to watch it being tortured on the way out).

And the funny thing is, there are much better rejoinders to what I'm saying here, but you're not even seeing them. Nor will you, if you keep using the kind of self-deluding mental tricks you seem to be resorting to here.

Tim,

You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise, either:
a.) Mathematical logic randomly appeared (in which case it's possible for 2+2=5 in another universe), or
b.) Mathematical logic was designed by some intelligent being (in which the creator must have appeared randomly)

Logic is independent of chance or design; it simply exists. If you put three pencils on an empty table, one by one, you will always end up seeing three pencils (1+1+1 = 1 * 3 = 3).

This is nothing as sophisticated as evolution or intelligent design. It also does not simply serve as a "way out" of your equation.

And no, I'm not repeating anything I've ever heard. In fact, many people may support ID, but the idea was originated by a person. Logic was not. To conveniently throw out the law of causality by suggesting the existence of an intelligent creator which itself was never created, and then to further suggest that a person using logic is simply repeating supposedly flawed arguments, goes to show who's parroting things they've heard.

Tim said: You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

"Yes" said: That's exactly what I'm saying.

Well, then you're clearly using "circular reasoning" or "begging the question". Believing your desired conclusion doesn't insulate you from having committed a logical fallacy by including it among the assumptions which allegedly "prove" it. No, not in the slightest: Most people who beg the question heartily believe the conclusion they are attempting to prove: that's why they're blind to their own illogic.

Looking at the new arguments you've introduced, if I may try to paraphrase this, and cut it down a bit, we have:

Either:
(1) L arose by neither chance nor design, OR
(2) L arose by chance, OR
(3) L arose by design

(Where L is either Logic or Laws, depending on whether you're willing to admit your chemistry example was clearly cooked.)

Regarding the first alternative: I have repeatedly pointed out to you that "design" and "chance" are defined as opposites, and claimed that events must be due to either, and suggested how you might attempt to undermine such an argument.

Yet you again ignore my response, and simply restate your thesis yet again, as though I had not answered that assertion before (it is just a restatement of "chance and design are disjoint" -- see my answer to that assertion) or as though you could make it so by repeating it yet again.

No: Please read the rules for comments (#3) and find out why such behavior is prohibited here.

Next: you are in error because you believe there are only these three alternatives.

(1) As just stated, if you believe in logic, specifically in the law of the excluded middle, then your first alternative is self-contradictory and meangingless and is thus excluded.

(2) If you want to discard logic -- which apparently you do -- and claim something can arise from neither chance nor not-chance, the it's just as valid to say it could arise from BOTH as well. And you do, yet you have omitted that possibility.

(3) There is another theory for the origin of logic which you have omitted from this list: Some believe logic is an abstraction, and not a real property of the universe itself, but just part of the way we describe it to ourselves mentally. It thus arises from sentient life.

You use the example of placing three pencils on a table, so there are... three pencils. But there are no events associated with that description, it has no external effect. It is just a way of saying the pencils sit there, doing nothing, neither multiplying nor disappearing. Without a mind to call it "logic", they are just doing what pencils do: sitting there.

But both ideas -- math or logic is "out there" and we're discovering it, or it's just an abstaction we're imposing on the universe -- are simply assumptions. As far as I'm aware, nobody really knows where logic comes from. Even mathematicians argue about whether they are creating new things by doing math, or discovering concepts which are really "out there" and existed beforehand.

This possibility I also mentioned last time, and, once again, you have dealt with it by ignoring it.

And again, this is a prohibited behavior on this blog: If I say there are at least four kinds of oranges, and specifically name them, you can't go on talking about the "only three possible varieties" without explaining why you have rejected an option I just presented you. It is both unproductive and rude to attempt to make your opponent's counterexamples go away simply by pretending they were never suggested.

So to conclude this point: even if your first alternative made sense -- which it doesn't, by definition -- it wouldn't follow that there were only two other alternatives you had to discount before it was the only remaining possibility. Thus you are presenting the reader with a false choice.

Next, I explain why your arguments against the two options you excluded -- sadly, the two of your three which actually didn't contradict themselves -- are also both in error...

a.) Mathematical logic randomly appeared (in which case it's possible for 2+2=5 in another universe)

Another possiblity: Perhaps logic appeared "randomly" (as you like to say), but "before" any universes appeared, meaning each universe would still be subject to it, that it would have contributed to the creation or structure of all universes which followed.

Another possibility: Perhaps logic is just something which arises when universes themselves arise, like matter, space, or time, such that it doesn't exist, and isn't even needed until those universes and the objects they contain (and upon which logic operates) come into being. Perhaps, in order to exist, all universes might need to follow same logical rules.

Another possibility: There might be only one possible universe, such that we can't even speak of other cases.

And, again, note again that logic may be an artifact of mind, thus in another universe, with no humans, we might not say 2+2=5, but we might simply say no logic was happening there at all. Then logic is just contingent upon mind, and the question is pushed back. If we say the mind arose by chance, and logic is a process in the mind, then we could argue logic arose by chance. But it wouldn't necessarily follow that 2+2=5 in another universe if this were so.

So no, it doesn't follow, for a number of reasons, that if "logic" arose by chance then it must be true that 2+2=5 in another universe. There are numerous reasons this might not be so. Failure to foresee or address them is not the same thing as having disproven them.

b.) Mathematical logic was designed by some intelligent being (in which the creator must have appeared randomly)

So we must reject this as a possiblity... why, again? Because it is impossible to postulate that a creator could design math or logic? If so, this is another apparent proof-by-assertion. If not, I don't see why this is an excluded argument.

And how does it follow that all intelligent universe-creators must have appeared, themselves? If that which brought the universe into existence were unintelligent, would that property suddenly obviate it's need to "appear"? Why?

And when you say "God appeared randomly" -- if you are referring to the JudeoChristian God, you are contradicting yourself. The JudeoChristian God is defined as an uncreated entity with no beginning, depending on no external contingent cause.

Just as you apparently prefer to assume an eternal, purposeless, mindless structure behind all other being, so others can conceive of an eternal logical/intentional cause before all other being. An apparent inability to admit or understand that you are simply making an assumption does not cause it to cease being one, nor tell us anything about it's relative merits, much less automatically exclude or elminate all alternatives.

So far, only three sentences into your response, we've encounted a number of logical errors: circular reasoning, numerous omitted possiblities and false choices, an apparent violation of the law of the excluded middle, as well as copious examples of proof-by-assertion. ("God must have appeared at some point!" Why? Dunno!)

You ask how I can claim you aren't being logical. I think this pretty much sums it up: most your answers are fraught with these kind of mistakes. Some training in formal reasoning would probably help you.

Logic is independent of chance or design; it simply exists.

Yet again, I am just supposed to agree with you, as you have again reasserted your core thesis. Yes, I recognize that you believe this. No, simply repeating your beliefs to me does not constitute a valid form of logical proof.

And you're not being very clear. I can say: "I simply exist" or "you simply exist". Saying things "simply exist" doesn't tell us a thing about what you think their origins might be. Do you think logic has always existed, never came into being, had no beginning, and is contingent upon nothing else? I think you are. Then just say that. If not, please clarify.

But if so, that's still unhelpful: If logic didn't have the property of having arisen at some point, then we can hardly say it provides a counter-example to the assertion that events must arise from either chance or design. It is not an event. It did not arise. As you define it, it cannot serve as the counter-example you are seeking.

As with the previous point, I've pointed this out already. So that's now three times, in one comment alone, you've ignored my answers to your assertions and gone on to simply re-state the assertion again, while not addressing my response.

(A final thought on this topic: if you are saying logic is transcendant, uncaused and thus existed from eternity, you seem to be agreeing with a core Christian doctrine: "God created man in his own image" -- that the thing before all other things had the property of logic ("God" for shorthand), and and that some of our mental properties, and in particular our ability to do logic, are actually a reflection of the rules which have always existed in the original cause -- and not merely, as some materialists claim -- an unreliable, random process assumed to have no transcendent function or meaning outside our universe.)

(And if you are saying the first cause contained or had at least the property of logic, and caused other things, then it sounds very much like you are saying things were caused by, well, logic or something logical. That would sound very much like you are trying to make an argument for design. So you'll need to think, I suspect, about where you're going there. I suspect the need to avoid conclusions like this are why materialists classicly promoted the alternative idea: that logic is simply a process which arose from a randomly evolved mind, and signifies nothing of transcendant value or meaning.)

This is nothing as sophisticated as evolution or intelligent design. It also does not simply serve as a "way out" of your equation.

Ummm... you seem to have gotten confused about where the burden of proof lies. I made a statement that design and chance are defined to be the only two possible origins for a particular event. You claimed that's wrong. Well, okay, but I'm still waiting for you to supply something like sound evidence for that claim of yours. So far, it seems that I've pointed out why each suggestion you've made is either irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or logically fallacious. In response, you simply ignore my answers (rather than deal with them) and appear to re-state your original assertion.

And no, I'm not repeating anything I've ever heard.

On most these points, I can tell. You seem to be making elementary mistakes that even people who would agree with what I think is your position would disclaim.

In fact, many people may support ID, but the idea was originated by a person. Logic was not.

You appear to be confusing objects and their descriptions or theories about them, and reasoning in a circle.

I refer you to Dr. Hugh Ross' books for a thorough and compelling answer to a testable creation model.

I refer you to Dr. Hugh Ross' books for a thorough and compelling answer to a testable creation model.

The most important fallacy of the intelligent design argument is the randomness-alone concept. As if every organism on the planet was always assembled randomly from scratch every time. No. The system has "memory" of sorts. It only works from one tiny success on and forgets all mistakes. Suppose our one tiny success propagates itself so we have 10 critters. Suppose one makes a fatal mistake and disintegrates. Fine. Suppose one makes an mistake which is an improvement. Now you have 8 original and 1 new improved version (let's say it propagates itself twice as much in the same time period). If nothing else happens, in the next generation you get 80 original, and 20 new and improved; the next generation after that you get 800 and 400, and the next generation after that you get 8000 and 8000 and so on. But previously we had a 20% “error” rate. So put that into the system (10% disintegration, 10% twice as productive as before) and see what happens. You do the math. Basically the critters "remember" the successful plan - by being more or less a copy of their parent(s) and only have to make one little improvement to be a roaring success. (In the real world, the plan was carried first on the RNA (which could have been as simple as 2 molecules joined*, which would bind to a particular amino acid)
and then in one improvement, on the DNA). Now multiply the population size (or half, if you assume they've discovered the advantages of sexual reproduction) by the lifespan of the critters and how long they've been around. That's a huge number, every one an opportunity for for and “error” which might be an improvement. The only “intelligence” that is required for evolution is the system “memory” of being a fairly accurate copy of your parent(s).

*(of any of these: adenine, guanine, cytosine, or uracil; actual codons are 3 molecules long, but the third position is still wobbly and the first two do not hook up to their respective amino acids in a random fashion)

I also find it interesting that I have never heard anyone, anywhere, in this kind of discussion actually mention Darwin's four principles, which if true, mean evolution not only can, but must happen – as a mathematical certainty. See above. I defy anyone to refute them (I would quote, but have to go instead on memory):
1) Individual variation exists [as genetic mutations and [hot off the presses!!: as genes permanently modified due to environmental causes (see Anway et al. 2005 article in Science)
2) It is heritable [both kinds, if they occur in germ-line cells (sperm and eggs)]
3) Populations are capable of excess reproduction
4) The "fitter" organisms survive. [these days we say they tend to reproduce more than others]

Whereas, the concept of intelligent design is just a façade for creationism. I listened to the Bible Answer Man for a long time trying to get to the “evidence” for this.
It amounts to only three tenets, of which the first two are blatantly bogus and the third is circular.
1) Evolution is cruel and capricious. [Is it cruel that some critters are dinner for others? (now you’ll explain it use it as part of “God’s plan”); doesn’t that make God cruel?, or the other favorite explanation, that only humans (read free adult white male) feel pain in any meaningful way. As for capricious… have you never had or known someone who had any kind of freak accident or totally undeserved bad luck? (Ah, you say, God is testing us and it only appears to be capricious); well why doesn’t he treat everyone the same, then? Otherwise, that meets the definition of capricious in my book.]
2) It’s racist. [Just because scripture can be twisted to imply one group is “better” than another has no bearing on the reality that some organisms reproduce more than others, or that this ability in itself is even “better” in the long term, leading as it may to overpopulation, starvation, and possible extinction.]
3) Because the Bible [and therefore creationism] is literally true, then Adam was a real man, who really fell from grace, therefore God as a real man (Jesus) had to really atone for it. If Adam wasn’t real but we all came from apes, then there’s no need for Jesus to save us either, and there goes “the Capstone of Christianity”. [Well, maybe we have a selfish animal nature by way of being animals, and this story is one way we can let God admit complicity in this for having made us this way, and let us all get on with our lives. The whole forbidden fruit story would be like the parent who gives the toddler a cookie then says ‘Don’t eat that, or I’ll be mad’, then when the kid eats it anyway he gets spanked-not once, but for eternity. Doesn’t the punishment outweigh the crime, and who’s really to blame here anyway? And if this is the extent of your belief in the teachings of Jesus, I’d say it’s pretty shallow.]

I'd better correct this before someone else does:
from previous posting it should read:

Now multiply the population size (or half of that, if you assume they've discovered the advantages of sexual reproduction) by how long they've been around and divide by the lifespan of the critters. That's approximately a huge number...

This conversation has really been interesting – from the sidelines. I think the main point here is not Evolution vs. Creation – it is simply that the evolutionary scientists must address a philosophical issue when they contemplate how life began. The reason for this is that there is no “proof” either way. We can only look to the evidence. I mentioned the odds simply because in most “scientific” situations, when the odds become too great, the matter is reduced to what the scientists would call an impossibility.

I mention the odds of 1 in 1X10^111 and mention the fact that that number is far greater than the number of atoms – in fact greater than the number of protons and neutrons – in the ENTIRE known universe (assuming a trillion galaxies) for a reason: when you realize the incredibly small chance in these terms, you can appreciate that in most scientific situations, this would be considered an impossibility.

Even more interesting is the fact that, as I recently read in my research, that Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the possibility of non-life becoming life by random chance to be 1 in 1X10^40000. Scientists facing those odds must take a leap of faith when they say life happened by chance. Whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, you are basing your belief on faith alone. There is NO proof for either. Minus a proof, both are theories. THAT is the point.

(As for intelligent grappling – I also heard the Hail-bop guys are having a reunion) :o)

Now - on to other comments. I only have time to address two:

1) “Yes” and “humble seeker” both keep mentioning amino acids. “Yes” says we can calculate the chances of an amino acid forming (a single amino acid has never done any good). “humble seeker” says that some RNA amino acid chains have only 2 or 3 molecules. This is not true. RNA that is sufficient to make a useful protein consists of thousands of nucleotides (not amino acids) that are assembled by a protein (proteins are made of amino acids). All proteins need ATP or some prefabricated form of energy to do work (assembling the RNA nucleotides in this case). Note: a complex system is required to make any form of prefabricated energy that is ready for use by a protein; similarly, you must prepare your food before you eat it.

Basic biology will tell you that an amino acid is not alive in any way. How can an amino acid, or even RNA, be considered a “critter” and how can it multiply itself in order for there to be a “memory”? An amino acid is just another chemical – like salt – no one would say that salt replicated itself – by itself – and had a memory of better forms of salt. For RNA to replicate it needs a system of proteins which can only replicate RNA (proteins are very specific). For there to be cell replication / reproduction, there has to be mitosis. Mitosis requires a cell with chromosomes, and for mitosis to occur, there must be many other specialized components of the cell present.

(My 14 year old son wanted to write something on this subject – his comments are in the next paragraph – by the way – he is a genius – he just wanted to give you an idea of how complex and specialized life really is)

Consider the following: If a strand of mRNA (the RNA required to make a protein) is assembled by a protein from hundreds of random nucleotides, then it would have a totally random nucleotide sequence. Say this mRNA attaches to a rRNA (ribosome) that happens to be floating around, and that tRNAs are standing by, carrying the correct amino acids (the amino acid type is based on the anticodon on the bottom of the tRNA). This is what is required to form a protein from mRNA. But, since the mRNA was formed with a random nucleotide sequence it generates a completely random code for the amino acids, thus making the amino acid sequence in the complete protein random as well. Who says that this random protein will do anything at all? (Please review the following site for reference: http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/protfold.html) The point is that there is nothing random about life (all of the above assumes that the three forms of RNA exist to begin with).

This is why the odds of that cell just appearing suddenly / the construction of it happening simultaneously (and it must be at the same moment, otherwise the incomplete cell dies) by random chance are about 1X10^40000.

It’s like finding a watch at the bottom of a lake and saying “look at that – it is totally natural and formed by chance!” (a watch, by the way, has a much more simple structure than a cell).

2) It was mentioned that once the initial event occurred, the “critters” would evolve and the odds are not the same as the initial event (which you say “could” happen).

“As if every organism on the planet was always assembled randomly from scratch every time.”

One must remember that for there to be a beneficial mutation, there must be ADDED information. This defies logic. For a completely natural and random process to add information to create a more organized and sophisticated organism has similar odds of happening as the initial event. For example – the seemly simple division of sexes – for some “reason” these single cell organisms through random mutations become multiple cell organisms that randomly find that there are “benefits” to two sexes. Now you have the complexities of combining chromosomes and some form of mating and transport of half the individual’s chromosomes to combine with the other individual’s other half of the chromosomes. This is a huge jump! The odds are staggering – 1 in 1X10^111 is not even close – it is even less than that! And this is true for every step of the way to eventually form the diversity of life we see today!

In short: I would encourage people to look at the Laws of Biogenesis and Thermodynamics.

Biogenesis – life can only come from life.
Thermodynamics – the universe seeks entropy – “the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity” - things dissolve into chaos – they do not miraculously organize.

So the original argument is valid – scientists have faith – not proof – and they must address philosophy, personal egos and a belief system to assert that they know for a fact there is no God (I say ego because they want to be the top of the chain – and they bend their own rules and laws to fit a square peg in a round hole). They have as much faith as a Christian has when he claims there IS a God. It is all a matter of faith.

By the way – I note that some people seem to be getting emotional about this. If you want to use logic, remember that emotions can cloud your thought process and keep you from learning about and exploring other possibilities. This will keep you from discovering the Truth.

Hey Tim - the things I learned in school regarding evolution didn't even begin to touch on the notion of whether there was a need for a 'creator' or not, though there was probably an implication that evolution accounted for the diversity in living systems. Mainly, we were just supposed to understand 'variation and natural selection.' I haven't sat in enough classrooms to know what a "normal" education is. But if you're taking an informal and unscientific survey, I think that your education didn't match mine. I agree that science teachers shouldn't comment on non-scientific issues.

I've seen a number of what seem to me like misrepresentations that keep coming up in these ID vs Evolution debates flying around the web. Some are on this board, some not. I'll assume that readers of your blog at least believe in some kind of speciation and microevolution. Talking to someone who believes in a 'young earth' is usually not a matter of presenting evidence anyways, since they've already made up their minds on what evidence they will and won't accept so there isn't enough common ground for a rational debate.

Myth #1 - You either create a complex thing from scratch, or you don't create it at all.

It's just not true that in order to 'evolve' any beneficial trait, you have to get things perfect on your first try.

If you make an organism a little bit better at suriving, the organism is more likely to propagate in the next generation. It's kind of like a safe with 100 numbers 0-9 on the front. The chances of figuring out the combination is 1 *10^100. But if a number snaps into place every time you get the 'right' number, it's easy to guess a complex combination because you can move sequentially towards your goal. This doesn't always produce optimum results, but it does produce results. If most of an organism's DNA is structural, the number of mutations required for an improvement can be far smaller than the number of base pairs in the mRNA. Changes to an active site might be hugely significant. Some changes to the structural part of the protein can have almost no effect, positive or negative.

Similarly, you don't need to evolve an entire eye all at once. An eye spot which senses changes in light is a good starter. A lens can follow. The eye can't be created quickly, but any probability analysis needs to take account of the fact that it doesn't need to be constructed all at once.

Life tends to reuse thigns it makes, or that other creatures make. Serotonin is involved in apoptosis, as a neurotransmitter, as a vasoconstrictor, etc. Few things are actually designed 'from scratch.' Rhodopsin and the pigment in the eyes cones are similar, and both are made from Vitamin A from plants, split in half.

Myth #2 - Evolution is a random process

Evolution can be broken down into two basic processes. Variation and natural selection. Some people, even proponents of evolution, have called evolution 'random.' I think this is misleading and doesn't square with the evidence.

Look at a virus like Hepatitis C. Parts of its genome mutate rapidly. Parts are fairly conserved. Those portions of the hepatitis genome which need to change the most often are also those most likely to mutate. Mutation here is directed to some degree.

Likewise, look at the human immune system, which is capable of developing complex antibodies that bind to an antigen. The design process takes days to months, and is helped in part by cross-reactivity. A person who is not born with Hepatitis A antibodies can develop the antibodies during their lifetime, even thogh these antibodies are too complex to be created 'via random chance.' If your body has another antibody that it can use so it doesn't need to start from scratch, it can effectively 'select' the model. (Forgive me for anthropomorphising here.)

Some organisms increase their mutation rate when under stress, so a 'normal' mutation rate is not an accurate measure of the true rate.

There are numerous studies, both of traits in organisms and in the DNA of specific genes which show that an organism can often rapidly revert to a past trait far faster than would be allowed by normal evolution. Genes are repaired faster than would be expected. Organisms given enough food to mature and mate faster will start having children with altered traits after several generations even when the environment is returned to normal.

While there isn't any evidence yet that the DNA in the body's T cells can alter an organism's germline (inherited DNA) causing acquired traits (resistance) to be inherited, life is clearly capable of 'designing' itself in an "intelligent" fashion. I'm not sure whether that speaks in favor of ID or not. Is ID an attempt to posit God as an explanation for the complexity of life, or is it an attempt to explain complexity in excess of what would be expected with truly random mutations in DNA?

Myth #3 Mutation rates should be calculated for a single organism.

Plasmids allow single celled organisms to share beneficial genetic information. So the odds of a thing occuring need to be calculated for an entire population, not just a single lineage.

Some DNA sharing is also possible for multicellular organisms, though this is far less common.

Myth #4 Evolutionary design is analagous to human design.

This seems to be an underlying assumption in a lot of analyses. There has been some interesting work, referenced in the book 'Swarm Intelligence' which discusses machines created through evolutionary processes (variation and selection.) While the process produced some amazingly useful tools (for the purpose of tonal recognition) it also tended not to compartmentalize systems in the way that modern engineers do, and in the way that doctors and biologists tend to analyze things. We think in terms of 'organs' but life isn't organized quite the same way an industrial machine would be, with centralized control, and with each component serving a single purpose. Look at how many different purposes blood serves - transporting immune cells, oxygen, hormones and nutrients, aiding in clotting. cleaning wounds, etc.

In short, analyses which usually work for engineering may not work very well for organisms since they aren't made using the same design process.

Sorry if all this was a bit longwinded. But ultimately I think it boils down to this; the purpose of science is to produce predictive value, and not 'truth' per se. Does ID make any testable predictions which differ from other evolutionary theories? I'd be interested to hear some.

And of course, I realize that there are plenty of misrepresentations of evolutionary theory by those who claim to support it. But I figure I should wrap up this post while there are still some people willing to read to the end of it.

Thanks for reading.

Two corrections;

"base pairs in the mRNA" Should read ' nucleotides in the mRNA string, not "base pairs" (since nucleotides in mRNA aren't paired when they attach to the ribosomes.)

"Organisms given enough food to mature and mate faster will start having children with altered traits after several generations even when the environment is returned to normal."

I should clarify here. Organisms which are given an environment where they can reach maturity and mate faster will decrease the time it takes for them to reach maturity and mate, and will do this in fewer generations than a purely random, evolutionary model would predict, and these adaptations can be passed on to the next generation. Faster maturation is often an advantageous trait, since it reduces the chance of death before reproduction and decreases the time it takes for a population to increase exponentially. I don't know if these changes are genetic or epigenetic, but my point is that there's evidence that in very specific cases inheritance becomes a little Lamarkian and acquired characteristics can be passed on.
Specifically, when an organism has been forced to switch between two states in the past, going back and forth, it can pass on information about the most desireable state to it's children. I don't know if this occurs through DNA (unlikely) but it does indicate a type of inherited information, so it should be relevant to the topic.

Ryan,

Interesting point of view. Basically, you must throw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You must believe that in nature, things can go from chaos to organization without any direction from an outside force.

You must believe that

1. Nothing can "explode" (Big Bang)
2. Nothing can produce something.
3. Non order can produce order.
4. Non information can product information.
5. The laws of physics are wrong.
6. The laws of biology are wrong.

All without direction.

Interesting that you say: "But if a number snaps into place every time you get the 'right' number, it's easy to guess a complex combination because you can move sequentially towards your goal."

You imply a goal. You imply that a chain (of anything - it does not matter) with some of the required parts will survive in tact and be "waiting" for the next part of the combination to click in. I won't even mention that outside a cell, the components or organic life cannot survive in even water, much less the toxic brew that would have been present in what you say is the beginning. So after the first "attempt" by nothing to create something was destroyed by it's environment, the next attempt would have to start from scratch. It (a cell) MUST be complete - if not its components will be destroyed. It must have it's defenses and regulating machinery in place.

Plus to imply a goal is illogical in that non-living matter cannot have a goal - unless it is acted upon by an outside force with a goal. Nothing was not sitting around for a billion years trying to figure out how to become somthing.

So please explain how evolution could have been started in the first place, why the laws of physics and biology do not apply, and how nothing gets organized. The scientific evidence and logic clearly show that there WAS a goal - that there was a design with purpose.

Please respond with some data that has ever been proven. Please reply with some logic.

Thanks.

Hey Nicholas,

I don't think you understand the second law of thermodynamics. It applies to an entire system. As long as the sun is burning and the solar system AS A WHOLE is increasing in chaos, it's perfectly within the laws of physics for some entities WITHIN THAT SYSTEM to increase in order (i.e. decrease in entropy.)

So this doesn't violate any laws of physics whatsoever. They physics police aren't after me. I haven't violated any of their laws.

What you describe; "that all things must constantly degrade" is simply not true and has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics as observed.

> You must believe that
>3. Non order can produce order.

I do. To give a very simple example, molecules randomly flying around in a solution can precipitate into a highly ordered pattern of crystal.

Take a number of molecules with one hydrophobic end and one hydrophilic end (such as can be produced with certain components of the primordial soup and electricity\lightning) and put them in water. They will coalesce into tiny spheres on their own. This isn't guesswork. You can do the experiment yourself.

Also consider prions, which can 'replicate' even though they have no genetic material simply because they make certain other molecules conform to their shape.

Second - The 'goal' of life, or at least a goal of one celled organisms, is reproduction. You're right I'm anthropomorphizing here a little in order to try and make my point clear. There is no 'goal'. Things only tend in a certain direction. This is kindof like saying that 'water wants to flow downhill' if your audience wasn't familiar with the word 'gravity.' It's hard, writing on the web, to know just what scientific vocabulary a particular reader will have, and how thorougly they understand the words that they're familiar with.

The point is that the predecessor to a successful adaptation is often another adaptation which was also successful in its own right. The topic typically discussed here is with a complex structure like an eye. Primitive organisms such as euglenas have 'eye spots' which can sense light, much like we have retinas. An organism could have a lens, but not the muscles to control it, and still be better off. In other words, various structures are not 'all or nothing' deals. This is what I meant.

To address goals breifly - any system that works to maintain homeostasis, i.e. that uses energy to try and maintain a constant state despite a changing environment, demonstrates a very rudimentary degree of 'intelligence.'

>You must believe that
>
>1. Nothing can "explode" (Big Bang)
>2. Nothing can produce something.

I do, and this is backed up by observations in quantum physics. Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass into existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#The_quantum-mechanical_vacuum

I realize that you might be tempted to reject this notion because it sounds 'illogical.'

Ultimately logic fails if it doesn't match up with experimental evidence. Logic is simply a system of modeling, and a model is only as good as the predictions that it can make. There are models of the earth's environment which fail to accurately predict atmospheric temperature. When we encounter such a model, we assume that the models are wrong and the planet is right, not the other way around.
Experiment trumps logic. The best that 'logic' can do is suggest we're doing the experiment wrong, somehow.

>why the laws of physics and biology do not apply

What is a 'law of biology?' I've addressed your reference to the second law of thermodynamics. Since you haven't articulated any "Laws of biology," I can't respond to this point.

>Experiment trumps logic. The best that 'logic' can >do is suggest we're doing the experiment wrong, >somehow.

To clarify, in case this is misinterpreted, logic can be applied deductivly (apply a known rule to help us understand a situation) but if logic is used inductivly (i.e. in describing the rules that we think describe the physical world's behavior) then the experiment is the supreme arbiter. Newtonian physics is internaly consistant and logical, but that's irrelevant since its description of the physical world is not 100% accurate. Relativity and Quantum Mecahnics seem illogical, but they are also internally consistant and they allow us to better predict the outcome of experiments, so they're more valuable than Newtonian Physics is. Newtonian Physics is only used when perfect accuracy isn't needed (which is often, since most of our thinking is approximation.)

This standard may not be appealing, but it has produced theories which are useful (i.e. as predictive as possible.)

Ok... big breath...

On thermodynamics:

No natural system can be shown to tend to complex organization. For the example you gave regarding crystals, I quote the following:

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

"... And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are 'organized.' But crystals have not been spontaneously 'furnished with organs.' [or DNA] The correct term for such regular configurations is 'ordered.' The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from — the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple."

In other words, the molecules attract each other on an atomic level and fit into place like a puzzle. They are ordered but not organized.

The lipid bilayer spheres you mention are another example of ordered structures. They do not contain information. They do not strive for survival.

There has been work done that ascribes the same potential to amino acids attracting each other and forming proteins. It's called Biochemical Predestination and it was developed by Dr. Dean H. Kenyon. However, his theory was de-bunked and Dr. Kenyon himself appears in the DVD video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" wherein he states his theory was wrong. (Take a look at that video, by the way - it's good).

On Homeostasis:

A non-complex system such as the primordial soup could not be a homeostatic system in that it cannot react to maintain internal balance without systems in place to do so.

From http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HOMEOSTA.html :

"A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms."

So again: you have to have a cell - with a system and machinery in place to "want" to survive.

On vacuums:

"Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass into existence." I see nowhere in the cited article where the energy in a vacuum can become a significant amount of matter - only that there are temporary particles that may exist in a vacuum.

According to the theories regarding the quantum-mechanical vacuum, there may be background "body radiation" emitting from the vacuum chamber. In space where's the edge of the chamber? Even if there was background radiation and there were temporary virtual particles, they would be in one giant system. And they would seek entropy - they would seek to spread out evenly. Did you know that a small percentage of the matter used in a nuclear bomb actually converts to energy - like the size of a dime? You to say there was significant energy in the vacuum of space to form ALL the matter in the entire universe. That is a LOT of energy. Additionally, all that energy floating around in infinite space would have to ignore the second law of thermodynamics - in fact, it would ALL have to collect into one point (the exact opposite of what it should do) and explode into all matter in the universe. This is the opposite of science. It is a blatant disregard for what we observe in the world of science and the laws that have been proven true.

The article you cite even mentions the fact that within the vacuum there will be thermodynamic equilibrium. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium

On Prions:

Please see http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biomedicine/Prions/

Prions are proteins found on the plasma membranes of cells. Prions are manufactured by other proteins that fold amino acids into specific shapes. There are chaperone proteins that carry prions to use as a template to form other prions. When an aberrant mutant prion is used as a template, another mutant prion is created. Although this is a "new" form of information transmission outside the well known functions of DNA and RNA, it still requires a host of other proteins and mechanisms to work. In short: you are wrong, prions do not replicate themselves.

Furthermore, the fact that a mutation of a prion causes the host organism to die is yet another example of a mutation that is not beneficial. In fact, almost all mutations are detrimental to the organism. I say "almost all" because I cannot be all knowing - however, I would be interested to see a bonified example of a mutation being beneficial.

I know you may offer the example of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics - my answer to that is as follows: they are variations in a kind - survival of the fittest does apply - within a kind. These variations are based on genetic information already present but not expressed in every living unit. A resistant strep virus is still a strep virus.

A mutation for evolution is the introduction of different or new information in the coding of DNA. Mutations are almost always due to a LOSS of information - or a mix up of existing information. And such a loss or mix up is deadly or disabling.

It's kind of like saying that two different finches with specialized beaks are good examples of evolution - they are - for MICRO evolution - evolution within a kind. No new information - no mutation. No finch ever became a different species of animal - like, say a mouse-like critter. No new information was added.

On the "Laws of Biology":

The law of which I speak is known as the Law of Biogenesis. This law says two things: (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.

On the fossil layers:

The separation of types (usually by size) of animals can be the result of the sorting power of water and sediments in a cataclysmic flood. The sudden deposition of such layers and the subsequent exposure via erosion (canyons) can be seen in such areas as Mt. St. Helens.

Can you explain how many multiple strata of solid rock are dramatically bent on some areas of the Grand Canyon without cracking? If it was deposited over millions of years and was solid when it was bent, it would fracture (as in an earth quake). For many layers (supposedly representing millions of years) to be bent without fracturing, it would have to all be wet / moist at the same time - as in a flood and sudden changes of the earth's crust or surface.

Also - why are there ALWAYS sudden appearances of fully formed animals in the fossil record? If evolution has been happening continuously for 4 billion years, then wouldn't there be a lot (millions) of intermediate critters to look at. There have been none. And the ones that were thought to be, were later discovered not to be (such as Archaeoraptor).

You state: "I don't claim to know what led to the creation of the first cell." - Right! No one does! It is all just theory! It is all based on faith (like I said before - faith in something, or faith in nothing). So, for me, the issue really is: why is evolution presented to us from birth as FACT? It is not - and there are valid arguments for both sides - ID and Evolution. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that points away from evolution - but it is ignored because of a preconceived notion - in fact, the rules are bent to fit this preconceived notion and philosophy. I just wish the news, books and magazines would say "scientists believe this bone is 28 million years old" or "scientists theorize that this animal evolved millions of years ago" - instead of "this bone IS 28 million years old" or "this animal DID IN FACT evolve millions of years ago." Make sense?

I really like this exchange, by the way - I am learning a lot - thank you! You are obviously an intelligent individual.

Let me know your thoughts...

>On thermodynamics:

>No natural system can be shown to tend to complex >organization.

Again, no natural system as a whole can tend to complex organization. But this refers to an entire system, where no energy is gained from outside the system.

Creatures on the earth can 'tend to complex organization' without violating the second law of thermodynamics because the sun tends very heavily towards disorganization (increase in entropy.)

The sun "pays our debt" so to speak, by increasing its chaos so we can decrease ours. This is in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

>The lipid bilayer spheres you mention are another >example of ordered structures. They do not >contain information. They do
>not strive for >survival.

True. And I'm not claiming that they do or that they evolve. You asked for order arising from non-order. Not information or intelligence.
Those would call for different examples.

Evolutionary programming algorithms are good examples of information arising from non-information. The book Swarm Intelligence provides an intelligent and readable (though less than breif) description of these programs and how they produce information which they don't contain using directed randomness and selection.

Regarding the lipid bilayers, you had asked how an early version of life might have survived long enough to reproduce. I wanted

to;

1. Suggest a mechanism for this (even if it might be wrong)

2. Show how easily such a structure could form. (It would invariably have been present in the primordial soup. It could be created in a lab by mixing simple chemicals and adding electricity.)

(as could amino acids)
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html

Again, this mechanism could be totally wrong. It's just a possibility.

I never heard of Dr. Dean H. Kenyon, but I'll keep the name in mind if he comes up.

Regarding homeostasis;

I don't claim to know the mechanism by which cells first arose. I don't claim to know and I'm not sure how to reliably prove or disprove any claims made about most origins of life. I'm an agnostic on that score. I'll restrict my claims to this;

That simple life existed before more complex life, that complex life didn't come into being instantaneously, and that once simple cells were created more complex life was capable of evolving.

But homeostasis is a very simple process, not a complex one. To illustrate how much information it requires, if you were programming it as code you could just write;

while (living)
{
if x > maxlimit then
x--

if x x++
}

On vacuums:

>"Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass >into existence." I see nowhere in the cited >article where the energy in a

>vacuum can become a >significant amount of matter >- only that there are >temporary particles that >may exist in a >vacuum.

It's a small vacuum. You get small amounts of matter. My point is that vacuums do have energy, sufficient to bring mass (subatomic particles) into existance.

I know that mass is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction. A little less than 1%, roughly, if memory serves for a fission reaction. Fusion was around 1%.

It also happens when you burn somthing or release chemical energy, although on a far less detectable order of magnitude. (I know nuclear processes are different from chemical ones, but the energy in the chemical bonds contributes a very tiny amount of mass\weight.)

>According to the theories regarding the >quantum-mechanical vacuum, there may be >background "body radiation" emitting from the >vacuum chamber. In space where's the edge of the >chamber?

I'm not up to date, but I don't think anyone's claimed to have found the edge of the universe. I don't even know if the size of the universe is constant or where the edge is.

>You to say there was significant energy in the >vacuum of space to form ALL the matter in the >entire universe. That is a LOT of energy.

That's a lot of vacuum. To be honest, I don't know exactly how much vacuum energy exists in the universe, or if it's anywhere near enough to account for the matter in the universe. I'm familiar enough with concept on the submicroscopic level to say that vaccum energy creating matter is not an impossibility. But I'm not adept enough with physics to 'do the math' there. The few times I had to use the concept back in college, I got my energy values off charts, pre cooked and ready to eat.

I don't understand the mechanism by which vacuum energy might be converted to matter or why, as you suggest and support, the universe didn't appear instantly in a state of heat death. It's a good question, better suited to a good physicist which I'm not. It would be hard to guess at this information since I don't think anyone has been able to figure out whether the universe has boundaries and whether those boundaries are expanding, contracting, or constant over time. I know the universe seems to be heading towards heat death in the current opinion based on the observed red shift and observed matter in the universe. (as opposed to collapsing in on itself, which I think a lot of physicists would have prefered.) But we are agreed that the big bang is a likely event and that the universe is currently expanding, right?

Just so we're on the same page there. It's hard to place just what kind of worldview you're arguing towards, which can make it difficult for me to respond appropriately.

>Additionally, all that energy floating around in >infinite space would have to ignore the second >law of thermodynamics - in
>fact, it would ALL >have to collect into one point (the exact >opposite of what it should do) and explode into >all matter in
>the universe. This is the opposite >of science. It is a blatant disregard for what we >observe in the world of science and the
>laws that >have been proven true.

How much space existed at the time of the big bang?

Regarding the origins of the universe, I truly don't know whether any of our assumed constants were different back then, and have changed gradually over time. I know that there's been some speculation on this. My physics background isn't good enough to evaluate the truth or falsity of it.

There is some speculation that this is happening, but it's far from dogma.

"ROGER BLANDFORD: Well, there have been reports that one of the famous constants
of nature, which is called the fine structure constant, may be changing slightly over time."

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/transcripts/304_cosmos.pdf

This is a bit out of my area. I'm familiar with physics to a degree, but usually in the more utilitarian sense. I'm more of a biochem geek.

On Prions:

Please see http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biomedicine/Prions/

>Prions are proteins found on the plasma membranes >of cells. Prions are manufactured by other >proteins that fold amino acids into specific >shapes. There are chaperone proteins that carry >prions to use as a template to form other prions. >When an aberrant mutant prion is used as a >template, another mutant prion is created. >Although this is a "new" form of information >transmission outside the well known functions of >DNA and RNA, it still requires a host of other >proteins and mechanisms to work. In short: you >are >wrong, prions do not replicate themselves.

Wrong how? Because there's an extra 'chaperone' protein hypothesized to be required? A protein conformation is potential information which can be formed from inorganic processes and can transmit information in a replicative fashion by copying its conformation to another protein.

>Furthermore, the fact that a mutation of a prion >causes the host organism to die is yet another >example of a mutation that

>is not beneficial.

If it doesn't cause its host harm, it probably wouldn't be marked as a mutant, but as a 'normal variant.' Not everyone is the same height, weight, etc. You can have variation in a population with some of that variation being beneficial. Besides, there is no 'ideal' height or weight etc., though certain situations may favor a certain height or weight.

>In fact, almost all mutations are detrimental to >the organism. I say "almost all" because I cannot >be all knowing - however,
>I would be interested >to see a bonified example >of a mutation being >beneficial.

If a mutation was beneficial, would you still consider it a mutation? Various breeds of dogs are decended from wild dogs, but have been selectivly bred for certain traits. Same with breeds of horses and crops. Evolution is not a matter of getting 'better and better,' but of adapting to a new environment. In the case of animal husbandry or crop breeding, the new environment is human civilization and human breeders rather than death is the selecting agent.

This may not be the best case, but it's one of the most well recorded and demonstrated the degree to which selection can change a species.

>I know you may offer the example of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics - my answer to that is as
>follows: they are variations in a kind - survival of the fittest does apply - within a kind. These variations are based on
>genetic information already present but not expressed in every living unit. A resistant strep virus is still a strep virus.

What do you mean by "already present but not expressed in every living unit." You're saying that the information for antibiotic resistance is already encoded in a virus or bacteria when it enters the body and can never be developed while inside the body?

The best way to demonstrate somthing like this, as you said, is to look at viruses or bacteria and see that viruses can create useful information which is not already present in their genetic material when first acquired. We can view a few thousand generations of these critters easily and in our lifetimes, and I've found a lot of people who diagree with evolution tend to have a 'show me' mentality and discount any physical evidence from past ages, disagree with evidence from the fossil record as biased, etc. Until we can reach some kind of consensus on the fossil record I'm confined to giving you examples from organisms which can replicate a few thousand times or more in our lifetimes. Namely, viruses and bacteria. (An excellent book on this topic, if you're interested, is Ewald's "The Evolution of Infectious Diseases" which discusses alterations in virulence as an adaptation. i.e. Why are lethal diseases lethal and non-lethal diseases non-lethal and under what circumstances does this change. It's especially interesting since the CDC seems to still be using the older version of Burnette and White's theory on the evolution of infectious diseases, and sometimes it seems like they're selecting the data to meet their conclusions. But I digress... )

In the treatment of HIV it's common that if a patient is inconsistant about taking their medication then the pathogen will become resistant to the medication. Resistance, as you said. However this is not a matter of expressing information which was previously there, since a person can become resistant to their meds without taking in any new strain of HIV. The strain develops inside them. It is a matter of a change in an existing strain. (Strains of HIV were also noted to often mutate to become more virulent over time, incidentally. Some strains do this more quickly than others. This is 'good' for the virus in the short term, but bad in the long term.)

Likewise, if a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it can share this resistance with other bacteria through plasmids. Bacteria can also pick up pieces of random DNA floating by through a process called transfection which is very unreliable but occasionally works.

So the notion of 'within a kind' isn't really relevant to single celled organisms. DNA regularly passes between 'kinds' blurring the genetic boundaries between species. Having antibiotic resistant bacteria in your gut means it's more likely that the next bacterial gut infection you get will be antibiotic resistant.

Besides, if we agree that 'microevolution' is capable of producing useful information, where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution, and why? Useful adaptations (i.e. genetic information) can be produced via evolution without a loss of data.

Another example;

Viruses which are active in an organism over a long period of time need to frequently change their viral coats in order to avoid detection by the host immune system. This occurs via random mutation.

The population is unable to adapt to new sterssors.

Should read "stressors." Sorry. I.E. things that challege the organisms in their struggle to survive.

sigh .... the US education system is going down the tubes.

For logic to be used to come to a valid conclusion, then the assumptions need to be valid.

So you lost me on your second sentence.

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM

It is very highly directed by the environment in which the genes in question exist.

sigh .... the US education system is going down the tubes.

Apparently so: I get people here who haven't even been taught how to use a dictionary:

ran · dom - lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

You also have problems reading, as I didn't even mention evolution in the second sentence. I referred to "the observable complexity of the universe", which is closer to a discussion of a/biogenesis. I don't even mention the subject of "evolution" until over halfway through the first statement of the argument.

So you quit reading, apparently, because you imagined a word into the second sentence. Very impressive!

Of course, there are theistic evolutionists who believe that evolution was the mechanism by which God formed life. But, unless you agree to that assumption, you must otherwise believe evolution proceeds without "definite plan, purpose, or pattern."

And strangely, you're not the first person here to avoid discussing the core proposition by arguing about the meaning of the word "random" or "chance". Simply take it as "not design", okay?

Hey Tim, I think that there's enough honest confusion regarding what people mean when they say 'random' or 'design' or 'intelligence' for that matter, as it pertains to both human beings and evolution, that the matter should be addressed directly.

You've stated that randomness and design are opposites and opposed. However designs can have components which are accidentally or even deliberatly random.

A few different examples;

A person shooting a basketball at a hoop is not taking random shots, but their shots are not certain of success either. The shots are deliberate. We recognize (as outsiders) that they are trying to accomplish a pre-determined goal. But their success rate has a random component.

As I mentioned earlier, a virus has some sections of its DNA (the sections which code for the viral capsid) which, in some viruses, mutate more rapidly than other portions. The result is that the virus better eludes a host's immune system. The alterations of some portions of the viral genome and the conservation of others is advantageous to the organism's genes over the long term. Would we be out of place (as outside observers) saying that the organism was 'trying' to survive or replicate? Could we say that the randomness was 'deliberate' if its rate could be 'controlled'?

At what point can we begin to use the terms reserved for intelligent systems to describe evolutionary processes? "Deliberation", "design", "intent", "success" etc.

I realize that sometimes evolution results in mutations which could not be anticipated and were not 'planned for.' But sometimes it seems reasonable to say that the results were "planned for", to some degree.

The question shouldn't be whether or not organisms were designed by an intelligence. There are certainly intelligent patterns which influence the mutation of DNA. But I don't believe that this is what the ID movement is really interested in. The question is whether or not the mutation of DNA is in some way guided by God, or if life was in some other way created via Divine Intervention.

It seems that the true nature of the ID movement is stated obliquely, because a theory of DI (Divine Intervention) would be harder to teach in the classroom under current US law.

There was no need to read further, it was a discussion on intelligent design, you started talking about random chance. Further reading and your response confirms the lack of necessity to continue!

Shall I be a little clearer? Evolution has a VERY strong pattern. Even a purpose if you will. What's more, if we wish to resort to a dictionary -

chance
* The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
mutations have an assignable cause and a mutation rate is predictable

* A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.
mutations are forseeable. We know they will happen
* The likelihood of something happening;possibility or probability.
the possibility or probability of mutations and evolution occurring? 100%!

So, we have a 100% predicted and observed mechanism with a highly specific pattern (reproduce or not).

Nothing random or chance about it.

Once a propositions assumptions are incorrect, there is usually little point in discussing it's conclusions. And indeed, that is confirmed later in your discussion.

You state

"science" is no longer a matter of debating two competing propositions.

Science never was about this. Science is about what is observable and testable.

Proposition A is observable and (theoretically) testable.
Proposition B is neither observable nor even theoretically testable. It is like asking Saddam Hussein to prove he does not have WMD. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Well, unless you happen to have the ability to observe the entire Universe at the same instance, in which case you are God, QED.

Your discussion is one of logic, not of science. Logic makes no requirements for factual sensible premises.

The facts?
* The universe as we see it is 100% explainable through the mechanism of evolution.
* There is no evidence at all for a God.

Start with those premises and see what conclusion you reach.

Ryan,

You've stated that randomness and design are opposites and opposed.

No, I'm trying to say that if something, as a whole, was not designed, then it arose by chance.

However designs can have components which are accidentally or even deliberatly random.

Of course. Jackson Pollack painted pictures by spattering paint on them. The pattern was random -- by design. But that doesn't mean his painting, as a whole, happened by chance. The same can be said of a routlette wheel, which no-one would think came into being without a mind.

The question is whether any parts of the process or object are improbable, not whether some random component is present. A random component is always present.

Could we say that the randomness was 'deliberate' if its rate could be 'controlled'?

Look, there's no question that living creatures -- though I'd choose an example more complex than a virus -- can "deliberately" use randomness in their favor to live. Again, Jackson Pollack used it to purchase food and probably get so sex, too.

At what point can we begin to use the terms reserved for intelligent systems to describe evolutionary processes? "Deliberation", "design", "intent", "success" etc.

That's a great question, and one I'm deliberately not wading into, on either side, here so far. It's not relevant to the argument I've made.

The question is whether or not the mutation of DNA is in some way guided by God, or if life was in some other way created via Divine Intervention.

Actually, you're writing it backwards, as best I can see. At least for me, the interesting scientific question is whether life could have occurred by chance. I'm more than open to either alternative.

According to the best scientific evidence I can currently find, the answer currently seems to be negative, but I'm more than open to evidence either way. But I find this situation more amusing than anything else, given the implications:

If life could have occured by chance, then either theological option -- divine guidence or blind luck -- could still be embraced. But as it is, it looks like blind luck isn't doing too well, which gives me the chance to observe, and comment on (see main article) some rather interesting mental gyrations from the secular camp.

Naturally, as this is so, there are will be some who wish to present the discomforting data, of course knowing full well the theological implications.

But so what? Dawkins is an angry atheist, who lets you know full well he also makes his arguments for theological reasons. Indeed, he can barely get through an interview without going theological. And Stephen Gould, a lifelong Marxist, has been partially discedited because he, also, let his philosophical convictions mess with his scientific dispassion -- and his politics also undoubtedly provided the impetus for many of the arguments he brought forth.

(a) But so what? Ideas or propositions need to be debated on their own merits, not on ad hominem arguments about the suspected motives of the presenter. You don't suppress ideas and evidence simply because it skewers somebody's sacred cow.

(b) Above, I point out that works one way should work the other. If it's wrong to bring metaphysics in with the results, then let that be the rule for all players. If it's fine, then, great, same goes.

insider,

This gets amusing...

Evolution has a VERY strong pattern. Even a purpose if you will.

You're funny. For something to have a purpose, it must have a mind. Certainly, water falls down, consistently, but that doesn't mean we can rightly say water truly intends to go downhill. But in your mind, apparently as long as something has a "pattern", it must have a "purpose".

The human tendancy to seek a god of some sort is very strong here. Here you are, an atheist, anthropomorphizing the universe, giving 'blind' processes "purpose"! You apparently want to make 'evolution' a kind of 'God', giving it both credit for having created the universe and a motive, despite obviously lacking the requisite circuitry for the latter.

chance - The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause... mutations have an assignable cause

Of course mutations have a cause! Don't be silly. Every macro-level event has a cause. If we were to accept your reading of this definition we would have to conclude that since everything macroscopic has a cause, therefore, chance can play no role at any visible level, and there's no point in even using the word.

And certainly, there are some theists who believe everything has a purpose behind it, but that's hardly something you should be trying to prove. Instead, you're just apparently trying to empty "chance" of any meaning at all, perhaps because you can't deal with the argument directly.

So here are your errors: (1) You skipped the word "element". Of course mutations have a cause, but there is still an element of chance present. (2) You misunderstood "cause" here. It doesn't mean without preceeding events (in which cause the word would have no meaning at all at a macroscopic level), it means purpose or motive, from the latin causa -- motive, pretext, or interest.

You're not even answering my argument, since all you're doing is chosing another definition of "chance" from my the one my argument is predicated on. One which apparently has no meaning, since it could never occur.

Imagine I said I like meat loaf, by which, I explained, I meant my wife's meat loaf. And you attempted to redefine "meat loaf" to mean a rock artist. Well, fine. But you're not taking on nor refuting the argument: you're off on some self-indulgent tangent.

Finally, you have ignored my appeal to authority in which I pointed out that even evolutionists such as Dawkins admit there is an element of "chance" in evolution and mutation -- contrary to your assertions:

... chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence.

So, regarding evolution:
Insider: "Nothing random or chance about it."
Dawkins: "... a whole series of tiny chance steps."

So, it is Dawkins, not just I, who say that there is "something" of chance involved in natural selection and evolution. Feel free to write to him, and explain how he's screwing up your debate with me.

You might also read the rules for comments, and see that I look dimly on those who ignore answers I've already given, and go back to repeating the original argument as though nothing had been said. Consider this a warning.

The likelihood of something happening... 100%!

Yes, it's clear something will always happen. I marvel at your powers of logic. And yes, mutations occur.

And, uh, so?

So, we have a 100% predicted and observed mechanism with a highly specific pattern (reproduce or not).

Right: so if I flip a coin, because I know for sure there will be some kind of outcome, I can now also call a coin-flip a "100% predicted and observed mechanism with a highly specific pattern." Ergo, coin-flips are not by chance. And neither are quantum events, since your definition encompasses them as well.

Nothing random or chance about it.

"Nothing" random about it? Err, um, ever heard of quantum physics? Where do you think that particle causing the mutation came from? And what do you think governed it's potential interaction with the DNA?

And here's what funniest: scientists all over the world -- from all kinds of philosophical backgrounds -- are debating the odds of life forming by chance. Your solution? To assert that there is no element of chance at all in evolution or mutation! Hilarious!

You should really let them know that. What idiots they will realize they were.

"science" is no longer a matter of debating two competing propositions... Science never was about this. Science is about what is observable and testable.

Science was never about debating competing propositions? Hullo! Of course it was. Yes, it involves observations and testing -- of course. Who said otherwise? But science also involves debate about what those observations mean.

Except, I suppose, in your little world.

If we were to accept your reading of this definition we would have to conclude that since everything macroscopic has a cause, therefore, chance can play no role at any visible level, and there's no point in even using the word.

The above paragraph should have been in italics, as I was quoting, not stating. Sorry about that. I'm trying to say all that I need to and I'm not leaving enough time for proofreading.

Cheers,

Ryan

Actually, (looking at the original post) your conclusion is logically false.

Firstly, what is this "god" thing? It cannot be supernatural for if so, it is completely outside the realm of science. Science only deals with the natural and observable. Thus, the moment you can prove that such a being(s) exist, it is no longer supernatural, but natural! So, if we are to discern that a designer exists, it must be provable and observable and evidence of its existence must be testable within the realm of nature.

Secondly, you are in error in your conclusion that statement A is the opposite of statement B. Statement A concludes that we have insufficient data to substantitate the hypothesis of a designer. The conclusion of a hypothesis proof is either that the hypothesis is true or that the hypothesis is not true because it is false for known reasons or false for unknown reasons. Thus, there are three possiblities, not two: true, false and unknown.

All that is stated through the first statement is that there is insufficient data to conclude that the hypothesis of a designer's existence is true. It could be not true because there is no designer or it could be not true because we don't have sufficient information (ie. we don't know). However, the second statement presumes that there is no other possible conclusion other than that there is a designer. Remember that science works by deduction. Thus, when you *conclude* that there is a designer, in the world of science that means that all other possible explanations have been ruled out and in the case of "intelligent" design that is patently false. In addition, positive claims requires evidence to support the claim. ID has none. Therefore, statement A is most definitely not the exact opposite of statement B and therein lies your logical mistake.

Another issue you apparently have is with the scientist's definition of the word "chance". To a scientist, everything is predictable with sufficient information. However, we have a limited amount of information with which to discern a pattern. When we can, we try to predict behavior through scientific theories. For example, rolling dice is considered a random event. However, if we knew the exact atmospheric conditions at the time of the roll and had access to data such as the coefficient of friction of the person's hand and the starting position of the dice and the exact amount of force and the vectors of that force we could accurately predict the outcome of the roll. However, most of those data elements are outside our ability to obtain. Similarly, to say that life occured from "random" is a misnomer. Clearly there was a series of chemical reactions that happened in the appropriate sequence to build the first proteins. Whether we will ever have sufficient information to discern the exact chemical reaction and scenario is debateable.

Again, I'll state, the claim that something was created by chance is not opposite to the claim that something was designed.

Let me add one more item about the "odds" that life could begin by a series of chemical reactions. Firstly, it must be understood that mathematics is a tool of science but not science unto itself. Mathematically derived theories must be proved through scientific observation just as all other theories. Thus, mathematically inventive ideas such as "Super String Theory" is only a theory in the vernacular sense of the world. It is still a very strong hypothesis that has yet to provide a way of proving the theory. Therefore, you cannot "prove the existence of a designer" nor disprove an existing theory merely because you believe the odds to be for or against it.

Secondly, to accurately predict the odds of an event, you must have sufficient information about the event in order to make your prediction. It is simply not possible for bozos like Behe to provide an accurate model of prediction in relation to the possiblity of protein formation. The reason is that Behe (nor anyone else) can possibly have sufficient information about the number of non-Terran lifeforms that have developed and not developed in the universe in order to devise an accurate prediction. In short, the information necessary to make an accurate prediction is not avaiable. What are the odds that a over five billion years a life form that could communicate via electronic means would develop and at this very moment move their appendages in exactly the right order against a device to output these exact characters in this exact order to this exact response? They're astronomical! The odds against it make it impossible! It's an irrelevant argument. We know that life began and have no evidence of a designer. Thus, we either find scientific evidence of said designer or look for alternate explanations and that leads us back to Darwin.

Tim,

My comments might have been confusing since I've just realized that a carriage return on this website has the effect of causing italic text to revert to plaintext. Because of this, some of the passages I've quoted appeared, without italics, as though they were part of my own comment.

Look, there's no question that living creatures -- though I'd choose an example more complex than a virus -- can "deliberately" use randomness in their favor to live. Again, Jackson Pollack used it to purchase food and probably get so sex, too.

I used a virus because I was trying to illustrate intelligence at the genetic level as partially responsible for the creation of genetic variation (not only intelligent selection, but intelligent variation as well.) We can all agree that humans and even animals are intelligent. The behavior of animal brains practically sets the standard for "intelligence" to which all other possibly intelligent systems are, rightly or wrongly, compared. So I was trying to show how that this standard of behavior could be applied at the genetic level. Human intelligence can use randomness without being entirely random. Genetic intelligence can use randomness without being entirely random.

If we want to use people as an analogy for what happens at the genetic level Jackson Pollack is a potentially confusing example since art is more a matter of aethetics than functionality. Pollack didn't use randomness to create anything functional. Even so, we would certainly say that Pollack's paintings were designed and the result of an intelligent process. He could trade them for things he wanted and they were useful to him, as you note. If he were simply throwing cans of paint around his house, we might feel his actions were not as intelligent or goal-oriented. But he knew enough to confine his paints to attractive colors and to do his work only on salable media. Because he confined his randomness in an intelligent way, we credit him with intelligence.

If we were going to use human behavior to create an analogy for genetic behavior, lets talk about somthing that results in a more functional effect; a handyman who wanted to screw a screw into a piece of wood. He goes to the store and gets a set of tool tips for his screw driver and then tries them randomly till he gets one which fits. When he gets one that works (even if it's not an ideal fit) he uses it till it no longer works. Sometimes, he changes tool tips just for the heck of it to see if he can do better. If the tip stops working, he searches through his tooltips again for a different head.

His search for screwdriver tips may be random, but the fact that the handyman knew he needed screwdriver tips and not a blowtorch, a hammer, or a bicycle pump was an intelligent choice. To be able to selectively narrow a search space by conserving some genes and rapidly changing others is a similar type of intelligence. Viruses exibit intelligence by conserving some sections of their DNA while rapidly altering other parts such as viral coats.

I'm not saying that the process that I described is the only intelligent process which occurs at the genetic level, but it's easy to prove experimentally and to understand.

Earlier, you posited this dichotomy;

A: X could have arisen by chance (materialism, including evolution)
B: X could not have arisen by chance ("Intelligent Design")

Assuming we're refering to evolutionary processes and not abiogenesis, there are other options that what are listed here.

1. A thing could have arisen by chance.

2. A think could have arisen because of an unpredictable supernatural intelligence, including God.

3. A thing could have arisen because of a natural intelligence, either human, animal, genetic or otherwise.

Where evolution is concerned, most IDers I've read edit out #3 (genetic intelligence) and then create a false dichotomy between #1 and #2 (It's either purposeless chance or design by God.)

...doesn't matter what anyone thinks! Nature speaks for God Himself. As complex as nature is there is no other conclusion that anyone can reasonably draw than that we had a creator. Why is that so hard for some to accept? Spontaneous generation was shown not to occur well over one hundred years ago yet they still believe it!!!

> doesn't matter what anyone thinks! Nature speaks for God
> Himself. As complex as nature is there is no other
> conclusion that anyone can reasonably draw than that we had
> a creator. Why is that so hard for some to accept?
> Spontaneous generation was shown not to occur well over one
> hundred years ago yet they still believe it!!!

Bob, that’s a fine sentiment if we are talking about religion, philosophy, mythology, cultural anthropology or any of a host of other subjects. However, such statements have no place in science. Science works on evidence.

Thus, the first response a scientist would have to your statement would be, “What’s this “god” thing? How do I determine it exists? How do we know it is male? How do we know there is only one? What quantifiable test can we run that verifies such a thing exists?” There is nothing wrong with believing in a deity. However, said belief does not belong in a science class anymore than teaching mathematics does in an English class.

The next question a scientist might ask specifically in relation to the claim that life was “designed” is, “How do I differentiate between systems that were designed and those that were not?” In other words, to claim the existence of a designer you must provide a measurable, quantifiable test that can be independently verified. Without that test, scientists cannot consider the “intelligent” design hypothesis to be valid nor even worthy of consideration as science. Note that the first thing scientists will do with said test is to verify its accuracy by using the test against known “designed” phenomena and naturally created phenomena. If said test cannot provide a degree of accuracy beyond random chance, said test and indeed the entire hypothesis will again be rejected.

Lastly, it should be clear that you cannot prove a hypothesis by disproving a competing hypothesis. For example, suppose I have a jar of beans. I hypothesize that it has 10 beans and you hypothesize that it has 10 billion beans. Proving that the jar cannot possibly have 10 beans in no way proves your claim that it has 10 billion beans. However, the reverse is an entirely different situation. If I prove that the jar indeed has 10 beans, it clearly disproves your hypothesis that it has 10 billion. In relation to “intelligent” design, a common tactic amongst proponents is to attempt to poke holes in existing theories of evolutionary mechanics in the hopes that it will prove their hypothesis. What they fail to understand is that disproving the entirety of current evolutionary theory would in no way prove their hypothesis of “intelligent” design nor even improve its current (lack of) worthiness as a science. Thus, the moment you start writing “It could not possibly have…” or “The odds are…” or any other argument against current evolutionary theories, realize that you are in no way furthering your position that “intelligent” design should be treated as science.

Presuming by the “third paragraph” you mean my reference to the “design test”, the premise is simple: scientific theories must be quantifiable and independently verifiable. Thus, if the claim is that life was “designed”, it is incumbent upon the claimants to provide a means by which we can differentiate “designed” phenomena from naturally occurring phenomena. Note that “naturally occurring” does not necessarily impart “random.” It merely states that there is no evidence that an “intelligent” (a word we must use with caution) force created life as part of an intentional design process.

The argument of “natural” intelligence, as I see it, is an argument on a razor’s edge of validity. You have done an excellent job by narrowly defining the term “intelligence” yet I see it as an approach that is fraught with peril because of its vernacular use. Generally, “intelligence” and specifically the concept of a “design by intelligence” imparts intent. Yet, it is clear that in natural systems there is no intent beyond instinctual reaction or chemical reaction. For example, the combining of chemicals due to strong and weak forces require no intent and presumably no “intelligence” yet it is still true and is quite important in predicting results at the molecular level.

Remember that “random” merely means we do not have sufficient information or knowledge to predict an outcome. That situation can obviously change as science progresses. Thus, to say that the assembly of a eukaryotic cell is “random” is to state that we currently have insufficient information to predict a pattern. That does not mean that we will never have the ability to discern a pattern nor does it imply that said pattern does not exist.

Noting the scientific meaning of the word random is fundamental to understanding Tim’s logical error. Look at his initial premise:
>A: X could have arisen by chance (materialism, including evolution)
>B: X could not have arisen by chance ("Intelligent Design")
Statement A merely implies we have insufficient evidence to fully understand the causes of life. It makes no positive claim other than “we don’t know for sure.” Statement B makes a positive claim of “we know the reason and the reason is that it was designed by something with intention.” Positive claims require scientific evidence of said claim for which “intelligent” design provides none. Most of the “intelligent” design arguments are attempts to disprove evolutionary mechanics which is an entirely fruitless cause in establishing the validity of “intelligent” design and thus the premise behind my third paragraph.

> Good scientific standard. So how do you separate a system
> which acts with intent from one which acts without intent?

The “intelligent” design argument is wholly based on the claim that life is so complex that only a designer could have created it. A designer presumes that said designer intentionally created life. Thus, ID proponents must provide some means by which we can differentiate “designed” from naturally occurring. By proving that a given phenomena was designed, it follows that you are also proving that it was designed “with intent.”

I have encountered people that attempted to claim a designer “accidentally” created life. This type of argument is again would fail to meet the requirements of science that said claim is measurable and verifiable. It would be analogous to the claim that Purple Leprechauns created the universe but they are impervious to detection. If inherent to the claim is that we cannot verify the claim through observation then the claim is speculation and outside the purview of science.

> In particular, how do we separate one from the other if the
> system in question can't communicate, and we have to go on
> observable behavior? Does a shark intend to bite its
> victims? Does a population of cells intend to maintain
> homeostasis and adapt genetically?

We can put a number of objects and a shark in a tank and observe that the shark will bite the ones that it perceives as food if the shark is hungry. If the shark is full, we can run the same experiment and observe that it will not bite anything. In addition, we can observe the behavior of sharks prior to its attempts feed and find a pattern of behavior that can be used to predict whether the shark is considering an attack.

A population of cells will always act according to their chemical makeup. There is no intent in cells because there is no decision making process in a cell. A shark chooses whether it wants to go after a given fish or not. It chooses its tactics for a given scenario. It evaluates the danger of said opponent. A cell merely reacts in a way that is consistent with its molecular makeup.

We can put a number of objects and a shark in a tank and observe that the shark will bite the ones that it perceives as food if the shark is hungry. If the shark is full, we can run the same experiment and observe that it will not bite anything.

In addition, we can observe the behavior of sharks prior to its attempts feed and find a pattern of behavior that can be used to predict whether the shark is considering an attack.

So here we define "intent" as actions consistent with the preservation of homeostasis. If you don't have enough food, acquire it. If you have too much food, don't seek it. Particularly, your example illustrates the preservation of a homeostatic state which is not in equilibrium with the organism's surrounding environment yet beneficial to the preservation of the organism.

This is somthing that a simple chemical like hydrochloric acid does not seek to do, yet life does.

I'd be happy saying that an organism acts with 'intent' when these criteria are met. I'd argue that the same criteria holds true if an organism attempts to replicate copies of itself and alters its processes in response to an stressor.

Of course, we have a tendency to discount homeostatic systems when they aren't capable of changing their behavior. They should alter their response or else give up if they're making no progress. Otherwise, we're likely to view them as being 'programmed' (which is still distinctly different than a "simple chemical reaction").

Take a population of one celled organisms. They are, roughly, genetically similar in the same way that the cells in a human body are genetically similar (though with one celled organisms you run a much higher risk of freeloading parasites which harms cooperation.)
As both individuals and as a population, they can exibit processes which we'd consider intelligent. They can alter their virulence based on quorum sensing (is our population large enough to overpower our host's defenses?), etc. Over time, they can refine their attacks so that they either 'give up' on colonizing a type of environment, or else develop novel methods for doing so.

Even viral populations can rapidly alter their virulence and method of attack in a way that benefits them.

The differences in intelligence between a population of one celled organisms and a shark are a matter of degree, not kind. I'd argue that they fulfil your criteria for 'intent.'

There could be a different ID proposition. Not a Hebrew or Christian "God" but a more Brahmanistic (actual word?) approach that allows for evolution to work along side ID. Evolutionist like to portray evolution as something that just happens to organisms in their struggle to adapt. Why are they struggling to adapt? How did they evolve from amino acids that were struggling to adapt?

I would go with my undoubtedly less educated idea that life is unbelievably abundant in the universe. Life itself is a thing, or dynamic; a driving force that, while not necessarily intellegent, is at least organized in some fashion. I'm not ruling out the existence of a god, but we can see that things evolve.

What matters is that we shouldn't be that concerned about how we got here. We should be concerned about what we're going to do now that we are. Anyone who's trying this hard to prove through logic or science where we might have come from is just trying to push their own agenda, whether it's a religious or virulently non-religious in nature.

I think we should be trying to figure out what our future is going to be and not worry so much about our origins.

It's been hard to keep up with this great discussion. About the time I want to post something, I need to rewrite it. Therefore, to keep it short and sweet, I've been wanting to make 2 points about the nature of "random" and the nature of "information", as I understand them.

"Randomness" describes our inability to predict exactly what will happen in a given situation. So, put a pot of water on the stove: you cannot predict exactly which molecule of water is going to escape as steam, and when that will happen.

On the other hand there is a deterministic element here which gives the impression of design: why does the water always boil at the same temperature at the same atmospheric pressure? And also: if you leave the fire on long enough all the water will eventually turn into steam.

These two aspects of randomness and determinism are acting in every single chemical reaction, to say nothing of quantum theory.

"Information" is inherent in the mere existence of even the most simple thing. Every atom is loaded with information: it has a mass, a size, some electrical charges (even if they add up to zero), some electron orbitals/shells filled or not, electrons excited or not, some level of inherent stability or instability etc. and an inherent ability to react, or not, with various other atoms. And reactions are bound to happen; the molecules that result have even more "information". So, you can't restrict "information" to a DNA sequence; it's everywhere. And you can't say that a mutation is "loss of information"; it's just different information.

A cell does react in a manner consistent with its chemical makeup. It also communicates with other cells and processes information that it receives. Even a virus has to recognize a host cell, gain entry, and manage to subvert the host mechanisms to replicate its own self. And host cells have had to "find" ways (only semi-effective, I might add) to keep the virus from doing this, or else by now there would be no cells left.

All this gives the appearance of intelligent design, I guess, but I submit the "design" is inherent, and the "intelligence" is inherent. So, a "Designer" is evidently beyond my comprehension;
yet I consider the entirety of the Universe, and especially all Life, to be Sacred.

Foster, I agree with you that we should be trying to figure out what our future is going to be, and also that we all have an agenda. I see the Intelligent Design argument as only one prong of a multipronged attack on our understanding of the interdependence of living things, so that it will be OK to kill other organisms or exterminate species on a whim for the short-term benefit of a few individuals, while claiming it to be for the benefit of humanity and the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. My agenda is that we're all on this planet together, and we need other life forms - more than they need us, in fact. It will be argued that we're intelligent because we can build a watch, but we're only clever, we're not wise. We're no smarter than the people of Easter Island - about to cut down our last tree to make a canoe. If they had valued trees more than canoes they might have survived. Why isn't the agenda promoted here something more like "Creation Care"? After all, if we can keep the Earth (and ourselves) going till the sun burns out, won't that be a better fulfillment of human potential, i.e. more total souls to be saved. It's my understanding that all the dead souls waiting for resurrection don't really notice the passage of time anyway, so why not try to string ourselves out over a few more thousand/million/billion years?

Yet another critic on the right criticising ID, why the pattern? Don't say it's because your more rational than we lefties are, one moment there were no or few right wing critics of ID, now they seem to be everywhere. I only imagine it's embrassment, the Dover trials have shown you how irrational some of your supporters are, and so you've joined the battle to disavow them. Much like Skolal, or whatever his name is, fighting postmodernism because of how it damages the left.

Yet another critic on the right criticising ID, why the pattern?

Who are you refering to?

Much like Skolal, or whatever his name is, fighting postmodernism because of how it damages the left.

Alan Sokal and the social text affair. I believe that's what you're refering to. Lets for a moment give up these divisive notions of 'left' and 'right' and speak as individuals interested in truth, whatever the consequences which is what we should have been doing from the beginning.

The scientific ideal shouldn't be to use science to confirm our biases, but to provide us a method of thinking which allows us to see physical reality for a breif moment without our biases, even if that reality is unpleasing to us.

I realize that 'spiritual reality' is somthing else entirely, but spirituality doesn't belong in a science class.

Since you bring him up, I think Sokal is a kind of hero. The Social Text editors had gotten themselves involved in an intense bout of navel gazing as had a large section of leftist academia and someone needed to remind them that experiments mattered, that objectivity was important and that reality existed. Sokal's hoax proved their lack of rigor.

Rigid ideology for its own sake seems to be the bane of every political movement.

Ryan,

Sorry for the long absense.

Various things...

I think the more important word should be 'unpredictable.' Is "chance" limited to things which cannot be predicted by people, and thus a function of the intellegence and planning done by humans?

There are three things I'd like to mention here.

One is that we sometimes use "chance" to mean individual events which are (from a macro-level) deterministic, but about which, as you say, we lack knowledge. Like what are the "odds" a coin I have already flipped and hidden in my hand is "heads"? The "odds" are not 50/50: they are either 0 or 100%. I just don't know, so I revert to case 3 (below) to talk about it.

The second is "chance" in the true sense, individual events which ARE NOT deterministic: for example, quantum-level processes.

A third usage is in talking about mass processes, which involve either of the above (either true randomness and/or unpredibility due to limits on human computation). This is more where I'm focused.

The philosophical problem here is the meaning of the terms "likely" and "unlikely", or any synonyms you'd prefer (probable/improbable, natural/designed).

It is here that "design" comes into play, meaning, for my purposes "happened, but was unlikely." For example, this is the fundamental philosophical formulation behind "irreducable complexity" (an argument which I don't care much for). Things happened which "shouldn't" have, indicating the natural processes alone don't provide a complete explanation.

The problem is that the very philosphical tool evolution wields to explain what it means -- these things SHOULD (e.g. are "likely" or "natural") to occur, if natural laws are left to themselves -- necessarily invites the opposite question: Well, what shouldn't occur? Are there any such things? And what is the probability threshold which separates the two? When does some event become consider "improbable" enough to make us think it unnatural?

If we argue there IS no such threshhold -- that anything which actually seems to have happened, "should" have happened, then we vanquish arguments about needing "design". But we lose science, since our own beliefs are no longer disprovable.

While I am not an atheist, there are some atheists who believe in a universe which is fundamentally deterministic.

Such "atheists" are either in conflict with the best scientific data, or are definine "universe" to include the "supernatural" -- e.g. that which is outside the laws and space ("nature") we can observe.

Such atheists then, to try to sum up, are either ignorant (or otherwise reject widely-accepted, uncontroverisal scientific findings regarding quantum processes) or supernaturalists.

So if we decide that some evolutionary processes are intelligent...

I don't think anyone is arguing the "processes" are "intelligent". I think they're arguing that we're seeing artifacts which can't be adquately explained by the natural processes, at least as we currently understand them.

I think it would be better if we took them on separately for the purpose of the 'chance' vs. 'design' debate. I realize that from a creationist perspective, there may be little difference between the two...

From a philosophical perspective, there is little difference between to the two. Or any other disciple, such as archaeology, where we're trying to argue if something is an artifact or not.

To restate, yet again: The questions pertain to what is fit for teaching as 'science', what "chance" means, and what it means for something to be "designed", and (especially) the philosophical implications of the stances we take on each of those topics.

Please read the article above: it is a philosophical response to an existing philosophical stance.

Although I don't want to shut down any of the interesting debate on the specifics, please note that I'm not arguing for ID, creationism, or evolution. I don't mind if people debate either. And yes, if some argument applies to only one (abiogensis/evolution), it would help to be clear on that point.

... there are not, as you point out is a requirement, a finite number of possibilities to explore regarding abiogenesis.

There aren't? Last I checked, there were only a finite number of compounds, and a finite number of ways they could go together to make a particular molecule. There is undoubtedly a single least-complexity self-replicating molecule. Given all that, you can determine a probability that the given combination will occur.

Now the tricky part starts, as I've stated endlessly before: what does that probability MEAN? If it turns out to be so improbable that such a combination "should not" have happened, given the size of the visible universe and it's presumed age, what does that tell us?

Conversely: what would the opposite mean?

See above discussion.

...it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

Perhaps. (I have no dog in this hunt.) But to point out a few problems:

#1 The "prebiotic soup" or "primitive ocean" rich in compounds this assumes doesn't seem to have left any geological traces.

#2 Like Sagan's amino acids, functional enzymes are an important step. But there's still a lot of work remaining to be done before this project can be given a grade. Once you have the enzymes, you have to figure out the odds of getting them together, keeping them together, and working.

If we want to use people as an analogy for what happens at the genetic level Jackson Pollack is a potentially confusing example since art is more a matter of aethetics than functionality.

Ryan, you seem to get off track easily. To recap: Someone (you?) had implied that if something contained a random element, it couldn't have been designed. I pointed out that EVERYTHING designed had a random element. Pollack was convenient because randomness is more visible in the objects he produces. Randomness happens even in integrated circuit production, just at a less-visible level.

Art and aesthetics had nothing to do with it.

It's as if, while talking about weights, I compared elephants and ants, and you got off into a long discussion about whether elephants did or did not like peanuts, or feared mice.

I'm not "using human behavior as an analogy for genetic behavior". I was refuing the argument that if someone contained random elements, then, at a macro-level, it couldn't be designed.

1. A thing could have arisen by chance.

2. A think could have arisen because of an unpredictable supernatural intelligence, including God.

3. A thing could have arisen because of a natural intelligence, either human, animal, genetic or otherwise...

Where evolution is concerned, most IDers I've read edit out #3 (genetic intelligence) and then create a false dichotomy between #1 and #2 (It's either purposeless chance or design by God.)

Huh? I have no idea what you're going on about here. The question is when is some entity "intelligent", or artifact of it "designed".

You keep going on about "natural intelligences", but I'm not sure you've even defined what "intelligence" is. Are you saying, for example, the "wind" is intelligent? In what sense? Is gravity intelligent? What about water, seeking the lowest level?

It sounds like you're simply playing with the word "intelligent" to construe it in a way that nobody else, on either side of the debate, does.

So how do you separate a system which acts with intent from one which acts without intent?

Right. That's the question. I (and millions of others) personally view "intelligence" as meaning indicative of volition, will, intent, personality -- different from mere "information" or "reaction". The question here is "what is alive"? I'd argue such a system is "alive" if it exhibits intent, which is the ability to understand one's surrounds, create a minimal "mental" model of the surroundings, and then act in a manner which involves using multiple steps to acheive a goal.

To date, the only things we know like this are "alive". The question ID proposes is whether life itself seems to have been assembled in such a manner. If so, we cannot propose "life" as the one doing the intent- and plan-filled assembling.

I believe the jury's out so far. But let's at least get the questions right, and make the terms we're using clear first.

Jeshua,

This article was bunk from the start. You cannot use ID as a means of explaining anything scientifically because there is no way to test it. Of course you can say that the odds are against all of this happening, but if you think about it, odds are out of the question. Time is infinite. In saying that, then I must also state that EVERYTHING WILL EVENTUALLY HAPPEN.

You seem deeply confused. Time from the beginning of the universe until now, as best as we know, is NOT infinite. The universe has a finite age.

The question isn't whether everything will eventually happen. The question is whether that which ALREADY HAS happened was probable in the given, finite time which has already transpired.

You're basicly saying that nothing is improbable, so we can't possibly have any evidence of "miracles" or "design" or outside intervention.

Great, then you're admitting, by your own standards, that your own beliefs are unscientific, since there is no way they can be disproven. Nothing could ever be called "improbable", even a miracle, if I performed one before you, thus, there can be no way of testing nor changing your materialistic assumptions.

Your beliefs are faith, not science. You cannot have arrived at them by rational means, since they exclude any possibility of error or correction.

It amuses me endlessly to watch the would-be skeptics convinct themselves by their own standards.

Lol. No problem on the delay.

I'll leave the issue of quantum mechanics and determinism for a different debate so I don't get too far off track.

I don't think anyone is arguing the "processes" are "intelligent".

I am. Using Sternberg and Salter's definition of intelligence as goal-directed adaptive behaviour, I'd say that populations of genetic code can exhibit intelligence.

And I've given examples where viruses solve problems using randomness without running through the entire genetic search space of their code.

Let me put it another way.

I'm thinking of a number between one and 1,000,000
Time after time, you guess that number in a few hundred tries. This demonstrates a non-random process is at work, even if there is a random component. Some evolutionary processes work this way, as I've shown that with the Hep C viral coat. Creationists try to prove that evolution is improbable by assuming that a one in 1,000,000 chance requires 1,000,000 guesses. This is not correct. Because of this false assumption, the creationist incorrectly model the probability of various events and label them impossible when they are not.

... there are not, as you point out is a requirement, a finite number of possibilities to explore regarding abiogenesis.

There aren't? Last I checked, there were only a finite number of compounds, and a finite number of ways they could go together to make a particular molecule. There is undoubtedly a single least-complexity self-replicating molecule. Given all that, you can determine a probability that the given combination will occur.

Technically, no. Practically, yes. Perhaps a better word would be 'innumerable.' It's like searching for the Yeti in an impossibly large but finite forest. The problem involves a huge number of compounds interacting in a huge number of combinations over a tremendous span of time under a myriad of circumstances. We can find the Yeti or we can fail to find the Yeti. We cannot, as humans, search the entire forest and prove that the Yeti isn't there. It's very very hard to prove a negative.

There may be several near-least-complexity self-replicating molecules. Can someone prove otherwise? The one that actually started things off may not be the least complex.

There are several good theories which show how life may have bootstrapped itself up. RNA is capable of the enzymatic functions needed for life (RNA world hypothesis). I can't prove that this is the only way that abiogenesis might have occurred. This is just one reasonable avenue. There are several other probable theories, and certainly others that noone has considered.

#1 The "prebiotic soup" or "primitive ocean" rich in compounds this assumes doesn't seem to have left any geological traces.

What were you hoping to find? I'm not sure where you're going with this. Personallyy, I make few assumptions about the early earth. For all I know, life may have been seeded from elsewhere.

Someone (you?) had implied that if something contained a random element, it couldn't have been designed.

Not me. You. My assertion was the exact opposite. Intelligent processes can have random components without having random intent.

I read through the thread. I think you're being led astray because a carriage return undoes italics on this forum. So my citation of your passage appeared like it was my own assertion because my italics got killed.

Tim: No, I'm trying to say that if something, as a whole, was not designed, then it arose by chance.

1. A thing could have arisen by chance.

2. A thing could have arisen because of an unpredictable supernatural intelligence, including God.

3. A thing could have arisen because of a natural intelligence, either human, animal, genetic or otherwise...

Huh? I have no idea what you're going on about here. The question is when is some entity "intelligent", or artifact of it "designed".

The point is that evolution is not a random process. It is a non-random process with a random component, which is the third item in the list. Editing out the third item creates a false dichotomy between the previous two (God or "random" chance, with random chance being improbable thus 'proving' God.)

It sounds like you're simply playing with the word "intelligent" to construe it in a way that nobody else, on either side of the debate, does.

I've given references which use intelligence in the same manner that I do. (i.e. the book Swarm Intelligence.) If there's a term to describe a non-random process with a random component which adapts to pursue a goal (survival) let me know what term you'd prefer. It's all semantics to me.

I (and millions of others) personally view "intelligence" as meaning indicative of volition, will, intent, personality -- different from mere "information" or "reaction". The question here is "what is alive"? I'd argue such a system is "alive" if it exhibits intent, which is the ability to understand one's surrounds, create a minimal "mental" model of the surroundings, and then act in a manner which involves using multiple steps to acheive a goal.

What you're describing sounds closer to consciousness, which may not be the same thing.

But you don't like me using the word 'intelligence' so how would name our third choice?
The genetic code of a population has memory, (vestigial legs on whales periodically reappear, creatures quickly (over a few generations) readapt to circumstances they were previously adapted to via re-expression of suppressed genes.) The genetic code of a population is capable of solving problems without searching through an entire search space, and of progressive improvement in its efficiency when that efficiency is crucial for survival at a pace not predicted by random point mutation. Evolution is not a random process. To argue for a dichotomy of either mathematically random chance or devine intervention denies this.

different from mere "information" or "reaction". The question here is "what is alive"?

Reaction and information are both non-random events, but disparate concepts from 'life'. (computers and viruses both have information and can react, whether or not we consider them to be alive.) A thermostat has a very very basic form of what I would consider at least sub-intelligence (i.e. a potential component of an intelligent process, which would be adaptive when veiwed in aggregate.) At some level, all 'intelligent' processes are composed of reactive components and information. At the very least, such things are non-random.

Creationists try to prove that evolution is improbable by assuming that a one in 1,000,000 chance requires 1,000,000 guesses.

Sorry, random guessing should take 1 in 500,000 guesses, on average, not 1,000,000

Would you prefer the term "design via adaptive reactionary response?"

That'd make it clear that we weren't dealing with a process that could anticipate future problems if it hadn't solved them before, that wasn't conscious, but that employed other subprocesses usually associated with intelligence and was capable of producing designs which could be judged as the products of intelligence.

Are you saying, for example, the "wind" is intelligent? In what sense? Is gravity intelligent? What about water, seeking the lowest level?

I'm not claiming that wind, gravity or water are intelligent. I'm saying that a process or collection of processes (an individual, a lineage, a population, an ecosystem, or similar) is 'intelligent' if it demonstrates an adaptive response in pursuit of a goal ( homeostasis or survival typically ) Generally speaking, such systems require some kind of memory or language(s).

I would exclude processes which could be most easily understood through basic physics and which lack any kind of symbolic language. While all systems 'obey' the laws of physics, it's simpler to predict/describe the adaptations of a population's genetic code in terms of goal seeking behavior as opposed to a description of purely physical processes involved.

Given all that, you can determine a probability that the given combination will occur.

Technically, no. Practically, yes.

To clarify, technically you could determine the probability that a particular combination will occurr. However practically you'd have trouble making an exhaustive list of all candidate situations + molecules + substrates that were capable of kicking off a self replicating process. How do you show that you have all of the self replicating molecules on your list?

To repost a portion of an earlier comment of mine, so there's no confusion;

To address goals breifly - any system that works to maintain homeostasis, i.e. that uses energy to try and maintain a constant state despite a changing environment, demonstrates a very rudimentary degree of 'intelligence.'

Seeking equilibrium is not the same as seeking homeostasis. They're opposites.

Another clarification; When I say that evolution has a 'goal' that 'goal' (functionally speaking) is survival and replication of a gene or genome or a variation of that genome and not the developent of any specific adaptation. I know that there are a lot of scientists who say "evolution has no goal" meaning "a creature does not sit down one day and say 'I want my ancestors to evolve eyes'." This is true. Evolution doesn't plan things out that way.

But from a behaviorist standpoint, a population of genes acts as if they 'wanted' to survive and replicate. They react adaptively in pursuit of that 'goal'.

Well, what shouldn't occur? Are there any such things? And what is the probability threshold which separates the two? When does some event become consider "improbable" enough to make us think it unnatural?

If we argue there IS no such threshhold -- that anything which actually seems to have happened, "should" have happened, then we vanquish arguments about needing "design". But we lose science, since our own beliefs are no longer disprovable.

I agree with what you're saying here. But I don't think we're up to the task of predicting what should or should not have occured.

So far as I know, it's next to impossible to predict, using simple mathematical models, the outcome of a complex, self modifying system like a genome. My problem is that trying to prove that somthing "shouldn't have evolved" tends to rely on mathematical models that fail to consider even some of the most basic trends in evolution; 'hill climbing' behavior of the fitness of a particular gene from local minimum to local maximum is just one example. The models attempting to prove that evolution is improbable assume random movement, which is inaccurate. Imagine if you have a series of three hills which represent the potential fitness of a particular gene. Your location represents the gene in a particular population. (an actual population might have positions on more than one hill at the same time since there are multiple organisms.) You're halfway up the smallest hill. As the generations go by, there are changes, some organisms die off, etc. Your direction tends towards walking to the top of the smallest hill and when you get there, you stay even if there are larger hills because to move from your hilltop is to decrease in fitness. That's kindof how a genetic algorithm, which mimics part of the evolution for a gene, performs. And the process achieves results far better than what would be predicted by a truly random system.

Thus, the probability models which try to test if an evolutionary process is possible tend to inaccurately model those processes. I'm refering here only to replicating systems, and not abiogenesis.

So I'd agree with you that I don't think we have a 'science' for predicting, at the broad level, which traits should or should not have evolved.

Some things, like the probable lethality of a particular disease in a given time frame under set circumstances might be devised based on the current mutation rate, genetic variation, means of transmission, etc. of the pathogen. If it's worthwhile for the disease to decrease its lethality or increase it's use of host resources, how long should it take? But I'd agree with you that there is currently no good science for predicting what should and should not evolve in the broader sense. I'm not convinced there will ever be a good one. Especially if the earth is our only sample.

... there are not, as you point out is a requirement, a finite number of possibilities to explore regarding abiogenesis.

Given all that, you can determine a probability that the given combination will occur.

Technically, no. Practically, yes.

I meant here that 'technically there are a finite number of possibilities but practically there are not, there are an essentially innumerable number because the possibilities are not discrete but involve positions in 3D space.' However it comes off as a reply to the last statement above and not the first. Sorry for any confusion.

I think it would be better if we took them (evolution and abiogenesis) on separately for the purpose of the 'chance' vs. 'design' debate. I realize that from a creationist perspective, there may be little difference between the two...

From a philosophical perspective, there is little difference between to the two. Or any other disciple, such as archaeology, where we're trying to argue if something is an artifact or not.

However the mechanisms for evolution and abiogenesis are totally different. It makes sense to discuss them separately if probability is an issue in your philosophy (as you've asserted it was in the thread.) , and it should be

I do agree with you that scientists are beginning to realize, if they haven't already, that evolution is not a truly random process. I assume this is what you're refering to when you talk about whether somhting 'should' have evolved. However there are explanations for some of what's observed which don't force us to defer to supernatural explanations. Creatures evolve quicker than could be predicted by random variation and natural selection alone. Because evolution (say it with me!) is not a random process.

I'm not familiar with using archaeology to determine if a thing is an artifact. What methods are used?

You made the assertion in this thread to the following;

If life could have occured by chance, then either theological option -- divine guidence or blind luck -- could still be embraced. But as it is, it looks like blind luck isn't doing too well, which gives me the chance to observe, and comment on (see main article) some rather interesting mental gyrations from the secular camp.

That depends on what you mean by 'blind luck'. I agree that unassisted randomess is discredited. I don't think it follows that a material explanation of evolution is discredited. Part of my insistance on using the word "intelligence" is to draw attention to these other processes involved, some of which we're beginning to understand and some which still elude us, which are considerably more efficient than random variation + selection. Or to put it another way; things evolve faster, even within our lifetime and under relatively well observed circumstances, than a truely random model would predict.( I can only speak for the short term here) Some of the reasons for this are understood and I've given them. Some aren't. But as I've mentioned previously, it's very hard to prove a negative. Until we understand all the processes involved in genetic variation, it's not a good idea to argue for the supernatural by default. The things we don't understand are very often attributed to "God" (whether they're Godly things or not) making such attributions more of a wastebasket than an actual theory.

Random variation + natural selection as the only processes involved in evolution is or should be discredited. Genes are repaired incredibly efficiently. Certain regions mutate rapidly while others are highly conserved, these different rates being beneficial to the organism. Mutation rates can be altered based on the environment. Genes are suppresed via epigenetic means, and can be re-expressed quickly if the environment changes as well as reused for multiple purposes, genes can be shared amongs one celled organisms via plasmids, tranfection and other vectors. Some plants remain sexual when Raup makes a good argument that they should become asexual for short term benefit Etc. Calculations of the 'probability' that something evolved need to take these things into account and they generally do not, assuming that evolution is somehow a 'random' process and thus proving God.

For an example of similar processes look at the human immune system. It is capable of 'designing' antibodies to remove foreign particles. It is adaptive (to a degree). But it is not self-aware. Neither is it purely random. In other words, you can have design of novel artifacts (antibodies) with a purpose (removing foreign particles) without self awareness or the ability to anticipate problems which haven't occurred yet.

I'm saying that evolutionary processes are in some ways similar, and this should be taken into account if you're going to ask whether a certain development was 'probable.' In other words, evolution is more than just a question of straight probability and permutation.

Ryan, you seem to get off track easily. To recap: Someone (you?) had implied that if something contained a random element, it couldn't have been designed. I pointed out that EVERYTHING designed had a random element. Pollack was convenient because randomness is more visible in the objects he produces. Randomness happens even in integrated circuit production, just at a less-visible level.

Art and aesthetics had nothing to do with it.

I agree that Pollack's work deliberately used a random element as part of the design which is what I was going for, and that lends to it being a good example. His paintings didn't just having random, erroneous, deviations from spec. They had useful variations within a predicted normal range like a capacitor's use of quantum processes (IIRC). But I wanted a different model because "success" is too subjective with art. People have a habit of seeing faces in ink blots and creatures in clouds. I wanted to make sure that the intelligence embodied in the artifact was primarily a property of the artifact more than the interpreter of the artifact. If I use a bad model, I'm building my argument on sand. If that makes sense?

A third usage is in talking about mass processes, which involve either of the above (either true randomness and/or unpredibility due to limits on human computation). This is more where I'm focused.

So a person's decision could be 'random' if we were unable to predict what they were going to decide, correct? But they could view it as 'designed' because they understood it? We can fairly call design random if we don't understand it? I'm just trying to understand your terms.

Hope this wasn't all too much to digest.

I took 10th grade Biology last year.

We had a big month-long segment about evolution, basically telling us that everyone but christians know that evolution and spontaneous life is a fact.

They showed a ten minute long video in defense of the "creationists". Which consisted of a group of redneck looking home-schoolers singing a song that they don't believe they came from a monkey.

I didn't exactly leave with the feeling that they showed both sides accurately.

We had a big month-long segment about evolution, basically telling us that everyone but christians know that evolution and spontaneous life is a fact.

You're not a Christian then, Sean?

Seriously, do you know anyone who disputes evolution who doesn't argue instead in favor of a more biblically based worldview?

The only exception to this rule I can think of is Stalin's backing of Lysenko. But that, also, was done for ideological rather than scientific reasons.