Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by vz71

So previous to 1987 no one believed that there was an intelligence behind the whole of creation?

To answer your kind of a question. Catholics have always believed in Genesis 1: 1 -- God created the whole of creation. By inference, Catholics have always believed God is intelligent.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

I have proof, in the fact that ID has produced nothing but hot air for a quarter centuryr, and the fact that the idea is completely ignored by working scientists. If ID had a shred of credibility, it would be making waves in professional scientific journals. But it has no more credibility than "New Age' crystal healing, or "psychoanalyzing past lives," or the theory that space aliens constructed the Egyptian pyramids.

StAnastasai

I will eventually be checking this out. However, I believe that there has been some significant research by scientists associated with ID. Whether or not it can be inferred that the research demonstrates design remains to be seen.

Inferred as the first meaning in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition."1. to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises."

StAnastasia, (and others) since you all are knowledgeable about science, please, if necessary, correct my use of the word "inferred" above. Thank you.

[buffalo]

New Paper


The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis


Abstract

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.




...This chapter surveys the philosophical problems raised by the two Darwinian claims of the existence of Tree of Life and the explanatory power of natural selection. It explores the specificity of explanations by natural selection, emphasizing the high context dependency of any process of selection. Some consequences are drawn about the difficulty of those explanations to fit a nomological model of explanation, and the irreducibility of their historic-narrative dimension. The paper introduces debates about units of selection, stating the compelling force of genic selectionism but highlighting some critiques. It then addresses the limitations of selectionist explanations: the compared status of selection, drift, and phylogenetic inertia are investigated, and the debates over adaptationism are presented, with the aim of defining the varieties of adaptationisms as research programs. In order to assess the scope of natural selection, the chapter addresses weak and strong challenges to the Synthetic theory of evolution both from paleontology (punctuated equilibria, Gould's contingency thesis) and the evolutionary theory of development. We finally sketch some consequences of evolutionary theory concerning philosophical questions about human nature, on the basis of the hypothesis of the universality of selectionist explanations: this part deals mostly with epistemology and psychology.

[Charlemagne II]

But I have no reason to believe that God steppped in, overruling natural causes because they would have been insufficient for the task, as a designing and sculpting 'artisan', directly creating the structures ('Irreducible Complexity',

Sigh yourself. If God designed the laws. why would He have to step in and directly "sculpt the structures"?

Those structures would have been "sculpted" in God's mind at the dawn of Creation.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I will eventually be checking this out. However, I believe that there has been some significant research by scientists associated with ID.

I have not heard of any, and I work on a daily basis with biologists, biochemists, anthropologists, geologists, physicists, paleontologists, geneticists, and climate scientists. If I hear from them of any significant ID research, you can be sure I will post it here.

Whether or not it can be inferred that the research demonstrates design remains to be seen.

To search for a demonstration of design is to search in the wrong place. It is to abandon faith in favor of scientific proof.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by buffalo

New Paper


The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
...This chapter surveys the philosophical problems raised by the two Darwinian claims of the existence of Tree of Life and the explanatory power of natural selection. It explores the specificity of explanations by natural selection, emphasizing the high context dependency of any process of selection. Some consequences are drawn about the difficulty of those explanations to fit a nomological model of explanation, and the irreducibility of their historic-narrative dimension. The paper introduces debates about units of selection, stating the compelling force of genic selectionism but highlighting some critiques. It then addresses the limitations of selectionist explanations: the compared status of selection, drift, and phylogenetic inertia are investigated, and the debates over adaptationism are presented, with the aim of defining the varieties of adaptationisms as research programs. In order to assess the scope of natural selection, the chapter addresses weak and strong challenges to the Synthetic theory of evolution both from paleontology (punctuated equilibria, Gould's contingency thesis) and the evolutionary theory of development. We finally sketch some consequences of evolutionary theory concerning philosophical questions about human nature, on the basis of the hypothesis of the universality of selectionist explanations: this part deals mostly with epistemology and psychology.

That's a very strong criticism. As in the highlighted text, the current version of evolutionary theory is false. More and more scientists are realizing this.

Here's a review of James Shapiro's new book from Genome Biology and Evolution magazine. Mr. Shapiro also refutes the standard claims of the modern synthesis.

Some excerpts:

The key goal of this book is to demonstrate that a central premise of Darwinian evolution is incorrect and to spell out the implications of that conclusion for evolutionary theory.

Contemporary evolutionary theory posits the independence of newly-arising mutations from any future potential employment by the organism, hence “randomly”.

A major part of the book, about two thirds, is devoting to demonstrating that this key tenet of the Modern Synthesis is false.

Altogether, the evidence marshalled in the book for genomic responses and remodelling in response to environmental and developmental cues is a long and impressive one. It includes such phenomena as: the gene rearrangements essential to and ubiquitous within the mammalian adaptive immune system; the restructuring of ciliate macronuclei; changes within the genomes of sporulating bacteria; the yeast mating type system; massive genome “restructuring” during plant hybridization; hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila; a host of transposon and retrotransposon-mediated genetic changes in plants and animals; and much more.

It is hard to imagine what else but natural selection could be responsible for such trends, unless one invokes supernatural or mystical forces such as the long-popular but ultimately discredited force of “orthogenesis”.

Finally, with respect to this issue of selection, one might add that, in terms of Jim’s particular thesis, it is hard to understand how cells could have the very capacities for “natural genetic engineering” attributed to them without those capacities having been
evolved, in some manner and over long evolutionary spans, by natural selection. The evolution of such capabilities, favouring the process of “evolvability” (the capacity to give rise to new properties), is a fascinating subject, mentioned explicitly though only briefly in the book, and deserves more attention than it has traditionally received. Again, the only alternative for the origination of these capabilities, if one discards natural selection as the generative agent, is some supra-natural force, a position that I am certain is not being advocated here.

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten....full.pdf+html

Even evolutionists can figure this out. If natural processes cannot explain the origin of the complex programmed functions in the cell, "the only alternative for the origination of these capabilities, if one discards natural selction ... is some supra-natural force."

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

I have not heard of any, and I work on a daily basis with biologists, biochemists, anthropologists, geologists, physicists, paleontologists, geneticists, and climate scientists. If I hear from them of any significant ID research, you can be sure I will post it here.

Thank you for your information.

However, I am not looking for ID research per se. I have heard about some molecular research conducted by individual scientists associated with ID. That is the difference.

I am not interested in what can be inferred, I am solely interested in the evidence of the particular genes under study. The evidence is real regardless of how it is interpreted. In my humble opinion, some evidence which appears to exclude Adam and Eve does need to be re-examined. The papers' conclusions seem to be valid in regard to the evidence. However, I doubt that this evidence can be extrapolated to an universal conclusion. The inference is not warranted by the presented evidence.


Thank you for offering to post any significant ID research. Someday, I will research its methods and materials.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I will eventually be checking this out. However, I believe that there has been some significant research by scientists associated with ID. Whether or not it can be inferred that the research demonstrates design remains to be seen.

Inferred as the first meaning in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition."1. to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises."

StAnastasia, (and others) since you all are knowledgeable about science, please, if necessary, correct my use of the word "inferred" above. Thank you.

Yes, an inference is different than a logical deduction. You draw an inference from some evidence you've collected. If the evidence is strong enough, it leads you to infer a certain conclusion.

That is different from a logical deduction which follows logically from the premise to the conclusion.

We can infer the involvement of intelligence in the development of nature from the evidence we observe.

Yes, there has been significant scientific work done by ID-oriented scientists recently. Abel, Durston, Douglas Axe -- all have published peer-reviewed papers.

Durston has been innovative in measuring functional information.

Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell was named one of the Books of the Year by the Times of London in 2009.

Note the praise for that book here:

http://www.signatureinthecell.com/quotes.php

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Thank you for your information.

You're welcome.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by reggieM

Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell was named one of the Books of the Year by the Times of London in 2009.

"If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."

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

[grannymh]

From granny post 986.

"So, how does a biochemist explain inference (or the correct word) as it is used in real science?"

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

I don't quite understand your question.

I have been trying to wrap my brain around the induction method which is the basic method underlying scientific research -- so I have read. I have come across the word inference which connects the evidence to the conclusion. So far, I am good.

It is when I look at research interpretations which add conclusions which appear way out there that I start questioning. That is when, in my observation, the evidence does not warrant the inference. Because there were a couple of posts I wanted to reply to, I decided to try out the word inference. These posts are 1052 and 1057.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The human person is the apple of God's eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

But I have no reason to believe that God steppped in, overruling natural causes because they would have been insufficient for the task, as a designing and sculpting 'artisan', directly creating the structures ('Irreducible Complexity',

Sigh yourself. If God designed the laws. why would He have to step in and directly "sculpt the structures"?

Those structures would have been "sculpted" in God's mind at the dawn of Creation.

I disagree. "...the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." From Communion and Stewardship.

Scientific papers tell us that the eye may have developed on more than a few different occasions, that fortuitous incidents led to the development of man. God does not work that way, but by claiming that accidental forces and pathways led to to twists and turns and finally, by chance, to man as we know him today - we have given intelligence to a blind, uncaring process that needed to sculpt all along the way. And the clear implication that had certain things not happened, we might be lizard-like or walking on all fours.




Peace,
Ed

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

"If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."

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

Yes, that's the opinion of Darrel Falk, co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Then there were some other responses that Wikipedia forgot to include in their Reaction page:

In this engaging narrative, Meyer demonstrates what I as a chemist have long suspected: undirected chemical processes cannot produce the exquisite complexity of the living cell. Meyer also shows something else: there is compelling positive evidence for intelligent design in the digital code stored in the cell’s DNA. A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science.
— Dr. Philip S. Skell, National Academy of Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, emeritus

This is a ‘must read’ for all serious students of the origin-of-life debate. Not only is it a comprehensive defense of the theory of intelligent design, it is a lucid and rigorous exposition of the various dimensions of the scientific method. Students of chemistry and biology at all levels—high school, undergraduate, or postgraduate—will find much to challenge their thinking in this book.
—Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, former BBC Education Officer and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland

The origin of life remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern science. Looking beyond the biochemistry of the problem and focusing instead on the origin and information content of the ‘code of life,’ Meyer has written an eminently readable and engaging account of the quest to solve this mystery. Sharing both his personal history and a retelling of the key scientific discoveries of the last half century from this new and intriguing perspective, he has challenged us to consider an alternative to the standard story of abiogenesis and discover new meaning from our existence. I recommend this book to laypeople and accomplished professionals alike.
— Edward Peltzer, Ph.D., Ocean Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

The most substantial of the many outstanding enigmas in our understanding of biology is to explain the source of the genetic information strung out along the Double Helix and how it gives rise to the near infinite diversity of form and attribute of the living world. Dr Meyer's evaluation of the many contending theories in the light of the most recent scientific advances is comprehensive and dispassionate. While his interpretation of the arguments in favour of Intelligent Design may not persuade all, this is a fascinating and intellectually stimulating book.
—Dr. James Le Fanu, author of Why Us? How Science Rediscovered
the Mystery of Ourselves

Stephen Meyer shows with brilliant clarity that biological systems contain information whose origin cannot be explained by purely physical forces. He explains the crucial difference between the order within a complex system and the information needed to specify the functions of a complex system. Many engineers have always known that hierarchical systems do not evolve from the bottom-up by chance. Now Meyer has explained why hierarchical biological systems cannot evolve from the bottom-up by chance mutations.
—Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design & Nature, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Bristol University

This timely and important book is a landmark in the intelligent design debate and one which draws together all relevant research and information. It is elegantly written in a style that is accessible and laced with interesting historical and personal anecdotes. ‘Signature in the Cell’ will pay rich dividends to everyone who turns its pages.
—Dr. Norman C. Nevin, OBE, BSc, MD, FFPH, FRCPath, FRCP (Edin), FRCP
Emeritus Professor in Medical Genetics, Queen’s University, Belfast

Signature in the Cell delivers a superb overview of the surprising and exciting developments that led to our modern understanding of DNA, and its role in cells. Meyer tells the story in a most engaging way. He retained my interest through many areas that would normally have turned me off. He is careful to credit new ideas and discoveries to their originators, even when he disagrees with the uses to which they have been put. The central idea of the book is that the best explanation of the information coded in DNA is that it resulted from intelligent design. Meyer has marshaled a formidable array of evidence from fields as diverse as biochemistry, philosophy and information theory. He deals fairly and thoroughly with even the most controversial aspects and has made a compelling case for his conclusion. The book is a delightful read which will bring enlightenment and enjoyment to every open minded reader.
—Dr. John C. Walton, School of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by reggieM

Yes, that's the opinion of Darrel Falk, co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Then there were some other responses that Wikipedia forgot to include in their Reaction page:

Yes, the pro-ID guys you mention make up 0.01% of scientists.

[Charlemagne II]

ed

I disagree.

You disagree that God sculpted everything in His mind's eye at the dawn of Creation?