tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post587133158439480889..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Signature in the Cell: Chapter 2Stephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-85461457227760540272010-02-14T04:11:29.537-07:002010-02-14T04:11:29.537-07:00A friend of mine once said that God is not just th...A friend of mine once said that God is not just the God of infinity, but He is also the God of 2 + 2. Just because we think we can explain something doesn't mean God wasn't involved in how it came to be.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-7201324133379752302010-02-04T16:29:38.373-07:002010-02-04T16:29:38.373-07:00"No one knows if we will ever discover X.&quo..."No one knows if we will ever discover X."<br /><br />Yes. I know. We will. It's only a matter of time.<br /><br />"Life" is chemistry and we have a very good handle on chemistry. As a grad student it was predicted that we might sequence the human genome in a hundred years. Maybe a thousand.<br /><br />However, once the problem was cracked it took only a few years and now thousands of organisms have been sequenced. I would expect in a few years that newborns will be sequenced as a matter of course.<br /><br />So why should the origin of replicating biology be any different? Plausible explanations for forming membranes, catalyzing reactions, developing chemical cycles and pathways already exist. <br /><br />That creationists like Meyer deny the existence of this research is of no account, as is Meyer's book. Meyer is intellectually dishonest by setting up the reader to believe that the origin if life is a big mystery when that's not the case at all. It's a puzzle, but not a mystery. It's chemistry all the way down.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921039513056888571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-80682067644777469282010-02-04T16:19:13.793-07:002010-02-04T16:19:13.793-07:00All of the minds of which I am aware are matter-ba...All of the minds of which I am aware are matter-based. Even if a mind were nonmatter-based (which I very much doubt is possible), it would need to be intimately connected with matter to design. A nonmatter-based mind would seem to be much more of a mystery than a natural origin of life.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-37798049723805052802010-02-04T10:24:54.966-07:002010-02-04T10:24:54.966-07:00I had copied the exact sentence SWT did above, and...I had copied the exact sentence SWT did above, and intended to paste it here along with a simple "Bravo". then I saw that SWT had already done that. <br /><br />No one knows whether we will ever identify a natural mechanism for abiogenesis. I sometimes think we will not, even if such an mechanism exists (or existed). But what happens to the faith of a Steve Meyer if and when we do?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-70174901329712896572010-02-04T09:53:40.561-07:002010-02-04T09:53:40.561-07:00Prof. Matheson and Prof. Wood, would you guys be i...Prof. Matheson and Prof. Wood, would you guys be interested in discussing this or other topics in a forum (outside of the comments section of this blog), and maybe hosted on one or both of your blogs? I think many could benefit from seeing such an exchange. Just a thought...Agnosis00https://www.blogger.com/profile/14811257507910103970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-70430831815255157462010-02-04T07:27:22.761-07:002010-02-04T07:27:22.761-07:00Why were nineteenth- and twentieth-century biologi...<b>Why were nineteenth- and twentieth-century biologists and philosophers so sure that Darwin had undermined the design argument from biology?</b><br />I'm not going to let this one go. The ID version of the design argument is quite different from the nineteenth century's natural theology version of the design argument. The design argument as articulated by Paley was a nearly arbitrary mapping of some of God's attributes (often wisdom and benevolence) to attributes of nature. Paley's philosophy led to absurd conclusions about the emotional state of flies (seriously - read <i>Natural Theology</i>). Structuralist versions of natural theology like Owen's appealed arbitrarily to a divine design plan to explain homology. Contrary to popular belief (even at the time), Darwin did not attack the concept of design (the idea that God might have been involved). Instead, he insisted that appealing to design in the way natural theologians were prone was not an acceptable explanation, especially if there was a suitable secondary cause that could explain the data at least as well. The other feature of natural theology that Darwin directly challenged was its Pollyanna optimism about nature. In contrast, Darwin emphasized the struggle for existence, which directly challenged the naive assumption that nature revealed God's benevolence. Reading <i>Origin</i> as a direct challenge to the concept of design is obviously possible (as some individuals in Darwin's day did), but it was not Darwin's intention nor is it a necessary reading of <i>Origin</i>.<br /><br />Back to my point: I think the two questions Meyer is asking are being conflated. The first is why is Darwin perceived as having defeated the design argument, and the second is why did OOL turn to purely naturalistic accounts. I haven't read this chapter, but it sounds to me like he wants to conflate the two into one question: Why didn't scientists after Darwin consider design as an explanation of OOL? But that's actually two different questions. Your description sounds like he's got an interesting account of the rise of naturalistic OOL theories, but I don't think he has a good handle on design, especially if he thinks that design (in the form of natural theology) was ever really interested in OOL to begin with. Origin of life as a distinct subject from the origin of species was never seriously considered by natural theologians (to my knowledge). They were interested in the origin of species as examples of God's benevolence and wisdom. When Darwin argued persuasively that species came from other species, I suspect it took a while for OOL as a <i>distinct</i> design argument to become popular. I suspect it was there in early antievolutionism (probably in the form of arguments against spontaneous generation from Redi and Pasteur), but I would have to look into that to be certain. In any event, It sounds like Meyer is doing a bait-and-switch by conflating concerns of 19th century natural theologians with the concerns of 21st century IDists.<br /><br />Sorry about that pontification, but I had to get that off my chest.toddcwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07913361618341959465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-61189722402618815502010-02-03T22:42:28.440-07:002010-02-03T22:42:28.440-07:00"A believer invokes the hand of God, not beca..."A believer invokes the hand of God, not because he needs an explanation for those things that can't yet be explained by material processes, but because he believes, and therefore sees God's hand in all the processes he observes."<br /><br />Very nicely put ... thank you!SWTnoreply@blogger.com