Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Love!

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

[cho pilo]

Originally Posted by buffalo

I am speaking of the language of DNA not the molecule itself.

Start here: The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentences, Grammar, Phonetics and Semantics

Sorry, the cite you posted admits in it's first paragraph...

For convienience, we may refer to the belief, common among contemporary molecular biologists, that the laws of physics and chemistry are necessary and sufficient to account for life as the PC(physics and chemistry) paradigm.

Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it's chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by cho pilo

Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it's chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

Wow. That's actually a brilliant dissection of the problem at the heart of 'intelligent design' theory - the belief held by ID theorists appears to be that there is someone who intended to communicate a message, through DNA, to some recipient(s). Yet there is no evidence for this - and there won't be, until a designer is unequivocally identified.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by grannymh

question --

What is the name of the textbook used to teach "Design"?

Originally Posted by grannymh

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

Is the contention here that something cannot be if it is not in a textbook?

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by razredge

perhaps He answers prayer by changing hearts and minds rather than altering physical reality.

That is what I think happens far more often -- God moves souls. I believe that while God rarely intervenes in the natural order, He often intervenes in the supernatural order, which includes our soul.

Fitting into that picture is the fact that the most frequent miracle, the Holy Eucharist, is a miracle that takes place in the supernatural order; it is not a physical miracle, or rather, it is a miracle that does not constitute an obvious intervention in the physical world, like a miracle healing (or the Miracle of the Sun).

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by cho pilo

Sorry, the cite you posted admits in it's first paragraph...


Other than the fact it is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached by examining the evidence, I agree that this is the view of main stream biologists. Your cite then goes into a desperate attempt to attach information TO THE DNA MOLECULE, calling it semiotics. This is pseudoscientific non-sense. Again the map is not the territory, there is no information or code in the DNA molecule, the information or code is added by those studying DNA for their own benefit or understanding, the DNA has no ability to interpret code, it does not contain information, it needs no interpretation to do what it does strictly according to it's chemical properties according to the laws of physics. Again, the Hydrogen atom contains no information telling it how to form water, that is no different for the DNA molecule, it is a template that directly, physically assembles molecules that perform the functions of life. The information and code is completely contained in the maps we make(so that WE can interpret and understand what the DNA molecule does), but it is not in the territory itself(the DNA molecule).

Do you think there is information or code contained in the contours of a patch of ground? We can develop information by measuring that patch, turn those measures into a map of that patch, but the patch itself contains no information. So when it rains we may know the exact shape, depth and outline of the puddle that will form on that small patch down to the smallest detail, but the patch of ground knows nothing of all this information, nor does it need to, it will form the puddle to those exact dimensions based simply on the laws of physics. You are still mistaking the map(information, code, etc.)for the territory.

That is actually nonsense. DNA IS information and it IS code. However, the coder is not a designer, but simply cumulative natural selection. Living organisms are driven not just by the laws of physics, but by information accumulated over billions of years of history -- information gathered by cumulative natural selection.

Increase of information can take place by, for example, gene duplication (a common, routine phenomenon), and mutation of one copy of the gene, making two genes. No designer required for that, once the laws of nature are in place -- if these are designed is another question (I would reply in the affirmative).

[Al Moritz]

By the way, it is standard scientific terminology (not terminology from a philosophical interpretation of science) to speak of DNA code or genetic code (just google these terms), and to speak of 'three-letter-codons' for diverse amino acids (and the stop codon which terminates a sequence).

Thus, claiming that DNA is not a code is plain silly -- and unscientific.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

I think the book bought by the school board in the Dover trial was called Of Pandas and People. It emerged that it started out as a creationist book until a quick global edit was done (change God to agent, etc.) to make it look scientific.

Ken Miller exposes the sorry business in the following talk, and from memory also demolishes a lot of the claims made on this thread. But he’s a Catholic and a biology professor, who made the effort to learn his subject in depth, so obviously doesn't know nearly as much as one of those ID websites with their nice graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Nice answer, but you did not provide the ISBN number to question in Post 2189.

Perhaps, someone else promoting ID can provide the name of the textbook used to teach design. There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Thank you.

God doesn't need a textbook nor do those who - even the archsceptic
David Hume - see evidence of Design throughout Creation...

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

God doesn't need a textbook nor do those who - even the archsceptic
David Hume - see evidence of Design throughout Creation...

I do not mean to be disrectful to God. However, in this country, I doubt if He is a member of a teachers' union.

Please keep in mind that I am trying to understand what is meant by teaching Intelligent Design along with scientific theories in schools.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by vz71

Is the contention here that something cannot be if it is not in a textbook?

No.

I'm trying to search out what it means to teach Intelligent Design which I presumed would be in a school. However, I did expand the ID "textbook" to

There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

That is actually nonsense. DNA IS information and it IS code. However, the coder is not a designer, but simply cumulative natural selection. Living organisms are driven not just by the laws of physics, but by information accumulated over billions of years of history -- information gathered by cumulative natural selection.

Increase of information can take place by, for example, gene duplication (a common, routine phenomenon), and mutation of one copy of the gene, making two genes. No designer required for that, once the laws of nature are in place -- if these are designed is another question (I would reply in the affirmative).

Thanks for putting granny-type ideas into words.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by inocente

I think the book bought by the school board in the Dover trial was called Of Pandas and People. It emerged that it started out as a creationist book until a quick global edit was done (change God to agent, etc.) to make it look scientific.

Ken Miller exposes the sorry business in the following talk, and from memory also demolishes a lot of the claims made on this thread. But he’s a Catholic and a biology professor, who made the effort to learn his subject in depth, so obviously doesn't know nearly as much as one of those ID websites with their nice graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

That global edit rings a bell. It may have been on CAF. However, as a Catholic, I am a tad prejudiced against calling God an agent. Fundamentalists, creationists, and ID advocates can call God whatever they wish. I prefer the Catholic approach to God -- especially the Seven Sacraments.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by grannymh

No.

I'm trying to search out what it means to teach Intelligent Design which I presumed would be in a school. However, I did expand the ID "textbook" to

There are creationist science text books -- which one does ID leaders endorse? Or do ID leaders give a school a list of preferred books? If so, what are these?

Apart from the book mentioned in post #2198, there's one by the Discovery Institute called Explore Evolution. However, my security software stopped me going to the book's website, reporting "This domain or a related subdomain was detected as a confirmed phishing site in November 2011". So you're warned, don't go there.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by grannymh

That global edit rings a bell. It may have been on CAF. However, as a Catholic, I am a tad prejudiced against calling God an agent. Fundamentalists, creationists, and ID advocates can call God whatever they wish. I prefer the Catholic approach to God -- especially the Seven Sacraments.

If you look at Ken Miller's talk (again from memory) the ID camp actually did a global edit on the text of the book, causing grammatical errors, and reprinted it in such a hurry that the mistakes went uncorrected.