Intelligent Design, Evolution, & Molecular Machines
Posted by Orrin Woodward on October 1, 2012
Because of my background as a product/process engineer, the molecular machines found within living cells are fascinating to me. These assemblies aren’t just machines metaphorically. Rather, speaking as an engineer who designed electric-motor pumps for nearly a decade, these units are truly micro-machines with functions/features beyond anything currently imaginable within the electric-motor design community.
How is it possible for world-class, patentable designs, which any engineer would be proud to invent, to be labeled as time/chance occurrences? Let’s reflect on this. On one hand, the most intelligent, skilled, and knowledgeable engineers in the world cannot recreate the functions/features of these machines using all available knowledge. And yet, on the other hand, the general public is repeatedly indoctrinated with the idea that time and chance alone created these complex machines.
Perhaps, for those not trained in the technical fields, this may be believed because one doesn’t understand the leaps of logic made from simple structures to complex machines. However, for an engineer who worked in this field for a decade, it is difficult to swallow some of the conclusions. For instance, one of my four patents improved an electric motor – rotors, stators, and magnets, shafts, bushings, etc. – and yet the machines within the cell blow away the functions/features designed within the patented part. Can you imagine an engineer developing a motor with equivalent functions to these molecular motors and management refusing him a patent because they reject “intelligent design” as a cause prima facie based upon their naturalistic philosophy?
In his landmark book Darwin’s Black Box, Dr. Michael Behe describes machines as having “irreducible complexity”:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
In other words, all the parts of the machine must be in place for the unit to function properly. If any part of the assembly is missing, then the function is not accomplished. Accordingly, the unit would not survive the time/chance model of evolution as Darwin described it. Remarkably, at the cellular level, there are numerous “irreducibly complex” machines that cannot be accounted for within any known evolutionary model hypothesis.
Even so, everything I have just described is actually just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the most significant aspect of the cell is the unexplainable (by naturalistic means) DNA information code. To build the cell with proper specifications requires an operating code that spells out the sequence of events in its exact order. How big are these operating codes one might ask? Neo-Darwinian Dr. Richard Dawkins states that one bacterial cell contains more information (in the form of specific step-by-step instructions) than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Furthermore, the billionaire super-programmer Bill Gates elaborates, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Nonetheless, Dawkins, despite conceding, “The machine-code of the genes is uncannily computer-like,” unabashedly rejects a programmer to account for the volumes of programming code. I say rejects a programmer, but that’s not technically correct anymore. Surprisingly, in an interview with Ben Stein for his movie Expelled, Dr. Dawkins, after a caustic attack on God, was all too quick to postulate on the viability of “aliens from another planet” designing life on earth. It appears that philosophical naturalists and scientific evolutionists don’t have an inherent problem with design and programming as such; otherwise, they would reject all designers and programmers. Instead, it seems that design is acceptable as long as it isn’t “The Programmer” called God. Dawkins, in other words, doesn’t reject design or designers; he just inherently rejects God. Evidently, in this instance, it isn’t data, but dogma driving his conclusions.
At any rate, the information code and irreducible complexity, even after decades of time, are still unexplained phenomena within the evolutionary paradigm. In my opinion, the specific programmed information within the cell is the single biggest hurdle for an evolutionary world-view. For example, the complex protein synthesis operation is coordinated by a blueprint inscribed in the four-letter DNA chemical alphabet, which is then translated into the twenty-letter alphabet of the proteins. Just this protein synthesis process alone is more complicated code than the writing of this blog with its twenty-six letter code you are reading.
Simply stated, books don’t write themselves regardless of how much time or chance is provided. In a similar fashion, computer programs, the size of Encyclopedia Britannica, require profounder thought than just a pencil-whipped time/chance explanation. Increasingly, the scientific community is waking up to the fact that Darwinism has huge problems and is without a viable hypothesis to account for information and programming. Without answers, these massive fissures will eventually lead to modern evolutionary theory, as we know it, collapsing on its own unsupported foundations.
Biblically speaking, this is nothing new. When a man denies God, it’s not from the data, but from dogma. The scientific research continues to reveal overwhelming evidence of design and programming. Nevertheless, the naturalist world view rejects God outright; therefore, regardless of what the data indicates, if it points to intelligent design, then it must be rejected as a matter of faith. Astonishingly, it’s not that they don’t see where the data leads them, but rather, they reject the data for taking them where they didn’t want to go. The Apostle Paul explains this phenomena in Romans 1:18-23 (ESV):
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Hence, scientists, like the rest of mankind in their fallen condition, deny the truth set before them. Science, however, by its very definition, is no longer science when it accepts dogma over data. Consequently, what we are watching unfold in the intelligent design/evolution controversy is less about science and more about philosophical world views. All of us can benefit by learning from all sides of the controversy. Science, in order to be science, must allow the data to speak for itself, but the data overwhelmingly points to design/programming, which leaves naturalists in a moral quandary. Either they reject their world view and continue to be scientists, or they reject science and continue to be the priest and prophets of naturalism.
Let me close with one more thought. The Human Genome Project, completed in 2000, described the hereditary information in the genome of DNA as the “book of life.” Watson and Crick discovered that DNA stores text, but not until Francis Collins and his Human Genome team, did scientists begin to decipher its full message. The resulting revolution has catapulted biology into the information age. Again, this is nothing new for a Christian. In fact, the Apostle John started his Gospel with the importance of the Word. What if this Word was a program for life within each living creature? We know every living cell is organized around information-driven machines. Let’s review John’s words on the Word in John 1:1-4 (ESV) with our new understanding from science.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
As a Christian, I am not afraid to seek truth wherever it may lead. How about you? Are you on a quest for truth, allowing the data to lead where it may? Or, are you on a quest for dogma, repeating slogans learned in school regardless of its relevance or accuracy today? Living as a human being today demands one to think through what one has learned, separating fact from fiction. I respect the scientists and their research on all sides of this issue. They are amazingly hardworking and intelligent; however, I refuse to swallow anyone’s paradigms without thinking through the ramifications.
In the same way, whether one agrees with everything I wrote is not the point. The key is that you start thinking about what you “know.” Indeed, it’s not as important that we all think the same, but it is desperately important today that we all start to think.
Sincerely,
54 Responses to “Intelligent Design, Evolution, & Molecular Machines”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
CJ Calvert said
Orrin, that is the most compelling argument for an atheist to consider doubting their certainty. Thank you for such a thought-provoking blog.
Cody said
No one should jump to any conclsions about non-Darwinian evolution. Consider the principle of least action coupled wtih the conservation of energy. These two “facts” about how the universe operates compell any living organic matter to conjure the best ways to use all available molecular interfaces to create transfer functions (e.g. the motor of the bacteria) that provide a means to an end that takes the LEAST amount of energy to do so. That is, by definition, the implication of the principle of least action. Therfore, IF evolution took place (I don’t conted to argure for or against, but just to shed light on facts) it could have definitiely made “inefficient” motors to begin, or motors, and mechanisms in general (e.g. the aformentioned transfer function) and from there reduced the complexity and inefficiency of the system by means of trial and error (this is an iterative methodology, there can clearly only be a finite number of combinations of molecular structure which created cellular structure that most efficiently provides a transfer function that takes some input, here an acid outside the cellular membrane, and creates an output, which is the rotation of the flagella). Thus, trial and error creating an “irreducibly complex” system is CLEARLY plausible and is the only convergent solution to the problem stated thusly by nature: “How can the functionality of this organism provide the most efficient means to an end by constructively using the principle of least action and the conservation of energy?” The solution begins with, “start with almost any acceptable and crude configuration and apply the infinite confines of time to the finite number of possibilities of selection” annnnnd given enough time you have the probability of soliving the problem equal to 1. Thank you for your time.
Wildtarg said
Cody, I think your argument is entirely valid. Yet consider this: What you are proposing is essentially a goal-seeking mechanism, a process that innately pursues ‘the path of least resistance’, like electricity or thermonic energy. Yet the point is being made by intelligent design proponents that the mechanism proposed by Darwin, namely ‘natural selection’ as he described it in his seminal work On the Origin of Species, could not arrive at some of the mechanisms that we observe in nature. The reason for this is that natural selection is not a reductive process, but an innovative one, that develops differentiation and specialization, one that produces variety from simplicity. What you describe seems to be the inverse – a process that moves from complexity to minimalist function. Not only is contemporary biology unaware of such a process, but even if such a process did exist, then there would be no stable ‘species’ as taxonomy and palentology understand them today. All would be in constant flux. And such a state of affairs is, not to overrefine the point, not supported by the fossil record. It is not merely a matter of logical hypothesis, but also of projection and conclusion, which you have done quite eloquently in your own right. Yet every hypothesis must be tested and put in context of the knowledge of the whole. I do appreciate your contribution. Thank you for presenting an alternative viewpoint.
Clint Fix said
Thank for this article Orrin! I’ve found that this topic has wide reaching implications. When children are taught that they’re just a result of chance happenings, that they don’t have any eternal worth, and that they’re fundamentally no different than animals, we shouldn’t be surprised that they act in accordance with those beliefs. When we teach life has no significance, it’s no surprise that people champion ideas like euthanasia and abortion and we see an increase in murders, suicides and massacres. Thank you for standing in the gap and fighting for the truth!
Here’s a great video from Lee Strobel talking about science and how it supports design, not chance.
http://vimeo.com/40963302#at=0
Marta Acheson said
Great stuff. Thank you
Justin Kurtz said
Wow! Where will this new reality of science lead us? How do we best share this information with the naturalist community? It seems that the sources of information (media) are on a path to destroy God and specifically Christ (though Islam seems to be well supported in my opinion) So could a documentary help? Is there a way AGO could create such a teaching?
Matt Mielke said
Timely article Orrin. I’ve been thinking a lot how to prepare my children for the philosophical battle they are going to enter into when they start their high school years and beyond. I remember the first time I learned of the flagellar motor and almost fell out of my seat. Coming from a science background as a pharmacist, I couldn’t deny the evidence, or, data. Now, I have more peace knowing my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have more Joy, stronger and more meaningful relationships, content with less and hope that surpasses all understanding. God Bless
matt
Dr Steve Garland said
As an example of an irreducibly complex system consider the giraffe’s cardio-vascular system.
Richard Kroll Jr. said
Who said you have to check your logic and intellect at the door to have faith in a loving Creator God? Thank you for a compelling example of God’s INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Joanne Brandtjen said
Orrin- thank you for sharing this. Kurt and I just went on a short ride yesterday to see the fall colors of Wisconsin, when you see that beauty you just cannot deny the truth of intelligent design. And a few days ago my friend showed me the ultra-sound of her baby and shared the 3D images she and her husband saw of their baby. I just don’t understand how anyone cannot see the truth of our creation. All we can do is pray they come to know God, his savior son, Jesus Christ and open themselves up to receive the Holy Spirit.
“Jesus answered him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6.
God bless!
Kristen Seidl said
Amen Joanne! You and Kurt have been a beacon of light in my life!
Rob Crichlow said
Terrific post. I want to walk the truth. Thanks for reminding me that I should.
Kristen Seidl said
Powerful Orrin! Thanks for taking the time to write this. That’s the problem today… most people are not thinking and just agreeing with dogma because it doesn’t always require one to think. Been there, done that. It wasn’t until I did start to think through the ramifications of my beliefs that I truly understood. My brother (who is not yet a believer) told me the other day that his only ‘evidence’ that there might be a God is that he has talent in something (music) he knows he couldn’t have developed on his own. I proceeded to ask him when he recognized this and he said it was when his hands were moving with the keys making such a beautiful sound with little practice or experience. He said it felt supernatural. That moment got him to think and I pray it leads him to an even bigger revelation as it pertains to creation and God’s design for his life. My mission is to ask questions that encourage one to think, with the goal of leading more people to Christ.
Alex Obiden said
About all that needs to be said is Amen. Challenge the conscious and watch the world view change. I am so glad to associate with leadership of this caliber. Truth takes precedence. Thanks Orrin.
jimmy varghese said
wow orrin. in studying apologetics, i’ve come to the realization it takes more faith to deny the existence of God than not. A credit card in the desert didnt magically come together. this is the type of war we are facing! i share the life opportunity with those who are in search of truth! doubt is great if it leads you to more questions and a pursuit of absolute truths. if doubt is leads to stagnation in learning than mosquitos flock. great article!
Keith Sieracki said
I know your passion Jimmy. Keep sharing the truth!
Will Johanning said
It’s so sad, but true. I remember walking through my high school hallways looking around at the crowds of students and feeling sadness for who I felt were ‘dead souls’ walking around and I wanted to reach out so bad and share with them the love that I had found in Christ. But so many of them had already succumbed to beliefs from from random places, just because they hadn’t really gotten an opportunity to view the hard data. It irked me because—those beliefs affected the REST of their lives! The teenage years are so fragile and influenced by peers and dogmatic leaders. Thanks for sharing—made me reflect.
Jason Fredrick said
Orrin
I find it interesting in the video that Mr. Dawkins only speaks in generalities. He’s so certain about what doesn’t exist, how come he doesn’t have any answers for what does exist? I also find it interesting how emotional and worked-up he becomes by very simple and innocent questions about his “scientific findings”.
I feel sorry for him and all the credentialists that need some elaborate explanation for everything. I think one of the main reasons “scientists” reject God, is because faith in an eternal and loving God is to simple of an explanation. They don’t want simple, they want elaborate and confusing so that nobody can follow what they’re saying. In their minds this somehow makes them smarter than everybody else.
Keep fighting the Good Fight.
God bless
Jason Fredrick
Kevin Hamm said
Great thoughts Jason,
I believe another reason for the rejection of a creator is the desire for the humanist to be autonomous and free from being accountable to a creator. Apologetics, therefore, make a far better assurance tool for the believer than they do a conversion tool for the humanist. The Spirit of God changes the heart and opens the eyes of the blind, logic does not hold that kind of power, but oh, how comforting I find these arguments in my own life. Thanks again Orrin.
Kevin Hamm said
Orrin,
I do believe in everything you just wrote. Thank you for demonstrating clarity and scholarship. It is for scholarship that I run for freedom, not the scholarship itself, but the work of eternity that can be accomplished by it. Thank you for the example.
Steve Leurquin said
Thanks Orrin. It is amazing how daily my children as well as myself are bombarded with “millions of years”. I always wonder why the lies are coming at such a relentless pace. What’s the agenda? Thank you for providing people with information to think about. I hope people do exactly that….think.
Steve
Teesa Rossman said
We recently ripped a “millions of years” page out of an earth science book here at home. Solomon (our 5 year old) asked why. Funny, when I explained it, it made complete sense to him. He is a very factual kid and the data was there from someone he trusted (us). I hope that he will continue in a life long search for the data, proving his one and only creator.
Chris Brady said
Great article! Thanks for spreading truth!
Maura Galliani said
As a new Christian (having been saved and baptized less than two years ago), my passion for God, and my relationship with Him, is overwhelming and brings me significant joy. Thus, I devoured your article like a dry sponge absorbs fluid And the content was all the more meaningful having recently listened to a recording by Dr. John MacArthur (the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA) titled “The Challenge of Science.” Dr. MacArthur clearly proves the irrefutable Truth of God as the Creator of all, going into great detail as he explains how everything in science and of this physical earth is shown in the bible. And you presented a great example, Orrin, introducing the significance of the cell and its DNA information code. What an example of God’s miraculous handy-work! Fired up!!
Keith Sieracki said
The best part Maura, is that Gods DNA code is in every single one of his children! Fired up indeed!
Judy Henry said
Orrin,
I have 3 grandchildren and one more on the way. The oldest just turned 3 and I already realize that we must teach truth both with our words and by our example. Thanks for providing such great content. To God be the Glory!
Diane Hussey said
Thank you for this amazing article that sheds light on darkness and exposing truth in such a logically and intelligently designed manner. 🙂 My prayers are focused on God’s truth these days -that He will remove the scales from peoples eyes so that they may see and understand how awesome our God truly is.
Dave Johnsons said
Thank you, Orrin for this post! Besides “Darwins Black Box” some other of my favorite books on this subject are “The Devil’s Delusion” by David Berlinski and “The Question of God” by Armand Nicholi, Jr., and “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer. Also I really enjoy reading and listening to Ravi Zacharias. Ravi has some great podcasts! There is a battle out there for our children’s hearts and minds.
“Though argument does not create conviction the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, But it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” – Austin Farrer
“You don’t give people testimonies by arguing them into the church… But if people believe there is no reason for believe, if they believe you have no reasoning or evidence, then there’s no reason for them to take you seriously.” -Daniel Peterson
Keith Sieracki said
What a great article Orrin! The microbiology of living creatures on earth is amazingly unique and complex. I cant help but think of natures uniquely linked macrosystems as well. I have had many experiencies in the African bush and symbiosis that exists between plant, anima,l and natural resources are nothing short of amazing. I cannot think of a better place than alone in the uninhabited African bush where you can see the handwork of God’s intellegent design everywhere.
Shannon Lasiewicz said
Amazing article. We just amazed with all the things you are called to do. Your God given purpose on sharing the truth amazes us. Thank you for your studies and leading the way to truth. God Bless you always.
Steve Sager said
What a fantastic description of truth and creating even more hunger to “think” of the systematic process of mankind. God Bless you Orrin!
John Burns said
Thank you Orrin!
I love that you, unlike all these other ‘public role models’ in our society actually STAND on your principles! What a breath of fresh air!!! KEEP IT UP!
Mathieu Catellier said
Thank you
Frank Carney said
Hello Orrin,
I am working on fractal equations for a project I am working on. What I find amazing is that with some simple equations amazing complexity and beauty can be found. I was drawn to use fractal math for my project because I wanted to synthesize natural landscapes. My goal is to build beautiful landscapes for people to exercise in using exercise equipment in their homes.
I told a friend of mine about using fractals as various frequencies and set locations to simulate crust fractures, water erosion, wind erosion, hardness maps, etc. He told me fractal math was discovered when they were studying how fractures occur in metals, stone, and other materials. These patterns get generated in the materials that break because of the complex stresses in the crystalline structures. That is why they are called FRACTals as in fracture.
It is simply amazing to see that in ordinary materials even as they break there is hidden beauty waiting to be revealed. Like a scientist I am discovering patterns of beauty that just seem amazing from pure mathematics. The more I study and learn about simple concepts of any scientific study I find that it gets extremely complex the closer I look either in the micro or macro scales. It gets harder and harder to see the world without some extremely amazing architect behind it all.
Here are some amazing views and I am just starting to explore:
beetlejuice
Julia Shift
Guitar Pick
Mandelbrot
Orrin Woodward said
I had a friend who studied fractals and would show me repeating patterns. They are amazing and display what a sequenced pattern repeated many times can produce. What’s amazing about the information in a cell is that it’s not sequenced patterns repeated, but specificity of information similar to the words I am typing. In other words, it isn’t repeated patterns of AABBCCDD, rather it’s the words you are reading. It seems God used repeating patterns where it could get the job done and then computer-like programming where needed. Truly a fascinating subject! Thanks for the reminder on fractals. Orrin
Daniel Michael said
Orrin,
Great article. I love reading Michael Behe when it comes down to disproving evolution. I taught a high school biology class for a few months one time and it was great sharing with these young men and women that something they had been taught all their lives was not true. Mr. Behe presents the argument not from Christian perspective but strictly from science and logic. Thanks for your article. More people need this information because we are not a cosmic accident but were created by a loving God.
Peggi Kern said
Thanks for sharing! Great timing for me as I’m studying the book of Genesis.
Justin Saroyan said
Orrin,
You may want to review this before posting it publicly because I in no way want to offend or discredit anyone.
I am sooooo glad you made this blogpost about intelligent design/evolution! I have been struggling with this topic for over 3 years now, digging through books, watching dvd’s Tim Marks has recommended to me, praying, going to church regularly for the first time in my life, and trying to figure out how to teach this topic to my kids (6, 4, 18 months, and almost born). I was raised with a strong evolution-based philosophy, but throughout my life have always known there was some greater power out there. As I’ve told Tim, I think both sides of the argument apply to Sturgeon’s Law, and it takes quite a bit of research to sort through the crud; on both sides. I do not agree with most of Dawkins ideas, however I do agree with Ken Millers’. Have you heard of him? I would LOVE to hear what you think about this explanation of irreducible complexity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU) because I value your opinion so much. I have no problem with most of the Christian beliefs, I just get really discouraged when false science is paraded as discrediting evidence against evolution, and then it is bought by 95% of the population who don’t dig deeper to find out if it’s truth or just media hype. I never had an affinity for any of the church experiences I encountered until I came to a Team event, and I appreciate the way the PC delivers the message and the spirit of Christianity. That says a lot considering I got a Masters in primate conservation! I really hope to have this all figured out soon so I can teach my kids the truth, whatever it may be. Thanks Orrin!!!
Justin Saroyan
Vallejo, CA
Orrin Woodward said
Justin, Great message and no edits necessary. I think Ken is a very smart man. I believe, he, and everyone who believes in time/chance evolution, has a serious issue describing the sequenced information in the cell. In fact, I believe the “irreducible complexity” is a cakewalk compared to tens of thousands of specifically sequenced series information necessary to build one cell. To my knowledge, I have not seen one reasonable explanation for the code that makes sense to me. Keep learning and leading and I am sure over the next decade we will learn much more as the examine the processes at the micro-cellular level. God Bless, Orrin
Justin Saroyan said
Awesome, thanks Orrin. I look forward to more conversations on the topic as we all dig deeper!
Doug roelofs said
Great post Orrin.
SJ Barakony said
A wonderfully insightful post, Orrin! Like most conveyor belt educated men & women, I, too, was taught evolution; in fact, I can, with a decent enough memory of it, remember that my ‘Honors’ Biology teacher showed the ‘Inherit the Wind’ movie in our class over a period of a few days.
I find that so long as your mind is open like your parachute upon descent to the earth, paraphrasing Zig, the more you can soak up in truth-based principles, apply this knowledge, and impact your life, as well as any others whom you reach out to, for the better 😀
Mary Hermsen said
Wow. That pretty much sums it up. And Thank You, of course!
Abraham said
What a wonderfully written composition. An article surely needing to be read by the masses. I have long been a great fan of this subject matter and sadly have witnessed the intentional denial of what apparently is the truth (regarding ‘data versus dogma’).
Thank you for presented your thoughts and conclusions on this subject in such concise way. I will advocate for others to come here to read for themselves what you have written.
Teesa Rossman said
Orrin, thank you for a thought provoking article. I enjoyed the line you wrote: “Science, however, by its very definition, is no longer science when it accepts dogma over data.”. I remember being in pursuit of truth in my late teens. The world makes it so hip to embrace “creatorless” world views. It’s almost a right of passage to have an existential crisis, thus turning inward and praising ourselves. Thankfully, I accepted the data I found as the fact that it was: I am a child of the Most High God…and I needed to be thankful and act like it. As for the dogma…there is nothing new under the sun.
Greg Johnson said
Orrin,
It IS funny how scientific intelligence is used to prove complex theories and then claim they were found to have not been created by intelligent design. Hummmm…..
Mike said
This does not make sense, nanotechnology will allow us to replicate any of those mechanisms in the future. What makes you think that God created us, just a book ?How about the Dinosaurs what does the bible say about NOTHING!!. How about the rest of the people in the world that are not Christian? This is a very egocentric view of life, if you really think there is a creator he is probably someone sick and cruel since he lets horrible thing happening in this world.I guess the indoctrination has been very well done. Sad.
Orrin Woodward said
Mike, nanotechnology is created by intelligence so that actually supports intelligent design. I believe in God because, as an engineer, I realized that evolution could not create the complexity of design we see in the world. Further, the ethics in the Bible have been (hard work, honesty, private property, service to others) instrumental in helping to create the Free Market environments that allowed the West to prosper. There are many non-Christians in the world, but I don’t see where truth is determined by a majority vote in any field. Not sure what is ego-centric about admitting God create us as it seems the ego-centric view would be to say I created myself or that nothing created me. Finally, the fact that sinful and rebellious people abuse, oppress, and manipulate one another, and you and I, even though coming from different perspectives, recognize this fact indicates something is wrong with the world. You have drawn the conclusion that it is God who made it that way, and I have drawn the conclusion, through my studies, that it is man’s rebellion that has made it that way. I support your right to disagree with me and I hope you support my right to disagree with you in a civil manner. I don’t believe vitriolic arguments help anyone, but I do believe in honest research and will study the nanotechnology further based upon your comments. thanks, Orrin
Wildtarg said
All I have to say, Mike, is that the argument of human suffering against a benevolent God is not as open-and-shut as it seems. Many minds and souls have set themselves to confront this difficult issue, and there is no easy answer. There is no shortage of thinking on this topic, but I will confess that most people on both sides of the God/no God question simply have not tackled the issue for themselves, and that saddens me. I hope you will look for your own answers and not simply ridicule others for their lack thereof. May reason light your way.
Wildtarg said
There has been quite a lot said, and some good references made, in this discussion. I only wish to give a perspective that is often neglected in these discussions. I will do this in multiple parts, and Mr. Woodward can provide his readers with whichever portions he sees fit. Firstly:
The one thing that we must not do, is to tout the ‘evidence’ when it seems to supports our beliefs and evade or deny it when it seems otherwise. One of the things that is not understood about modern science, even by most scientists, is that it developed as a branch of philosophy; once there was natural philosophy (science), religious philosophy (theology), social philosophy (politics or ‘democratics’ as it used to be called), et al. What has happened is that natural philosophy has procured so many benefits and privileges to man over his environment that it has eclipsed other types of knowledge. Discussion of different types or modes of existence, the nature of being, the nature of knowledge, what awareness and consciousness really are, have been all but consumed from their native fields by “science” and “scientific inquiry”. We have been indoctrinated for over a century-and-a-half, not on millions of years and natural selection and all such trappings of Darwinianism, but something more insidious: that “science” constitutes not some of man’s knowledge, but all of it, and that if science cannot inform us on a topic or concept, then nothing whatever can be known about it. I am convinced that most scientists and researchers are intelligent, disciplined, diligent performers in their field. But we should require them to compile and present their cases, not think for us or “educate” us (a gross misuse of the term, by the way) based on their thinking and conclusions.
Wildtarg said
Secondly: I have gotten far enough in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species to understand that if it had been published today as a work of scholarship, it would have to be broken up into three separate papers: One on adaptation and the struggle for survival; one on Natural Selection; and one on the divergence of special (SPEE-cial, i.e. pertaining to species) development. The first two are sound in themselves – as a Theist I have faced the evidence for natural selection and can find nothing fundamentally inconsistent in it. The third portion of Darwin’s theory, the process of specialization that leads to new species, has one major hitch: it has already been refuted. Not by the intelligent design group, but by something much larger in popular awareness: DNA and genetic replication.
In science history, when the structure of DNA was finally determined, the field of molecular biology was opened up. Before, there was no understanding of the mechanisms of cellular development and replication. Since that discovery, evidence has mounted to support special stability, or the fundamentally stable nature of a species’ defining characteristics. While changes and adaptations have been supported with evidence, what microbiology has discovered is that there are limits proscribed around such adaptation. In effect, Watson and Crick (accompanied by Franklin and Gosling), unwittingly opened the door to refute Darwinianism by showing that tissues were not defined primarily by use and by environmental effects, but by internal mechanisms and coding. The specific examples can and have been discussed elsewhere; but the principle of genetic material outlining the development and final structure of bone, muscle, organs, and other tissues, flies in the face of Darwin’s assertion that functional structures could be ‘molded by use over time.’
Wildtarg said
Thirdly:
The notion that Dawkins and others have forwarded, that life could have been ‘seeded’ by an advanced race aeons ago, does not ultimately solve the problems posed by Evolutionary theory. It does put them in a most curious location: outside the reach of researchers. If there is any such agency, we know nothing about it; who, what, or where it is, if it still exists, and have no access to data to confirm this notion. I find this very perplexing coming from a scientific community that routinely ridicules Theists for their lack of ‘evidence’ to support their belief in a supernatural, supremely powerful being. “Oh, God is invisible, insubstantial, and not experienced with any of the senses? How convenient for you. I’m sorry, but that’s just not scientific.” And yet they have done the same basic kind of thing; supposed the existence of some agency to which we have no access, no clear evidence (not according to the colleges and universities, at any rate), and no prior knowledge. “Oh, aliens of unknown origin, that existed hundreds of millions of years ago, seeded life on earth, went to an unknown destination, and left no direct evidence behind. How convenient for you.” And the religious leaders and apologists are supposed to feel shame about being ‘unscientific.’ Indeed.
The only differences between life on earth being the product of aliens vs. of a supernatural being (i.e. a God) is that the aliens themselves had to come into existence somehow – but since we know nothing about them we cannot speculate as to their origins; and that they exist within the universe, where a Creator would have existed apart from and outside the universe, and rather than being ‘beyond the reach’ of Man’s science, such a being would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry altogether. To put it another way:
So talking about aliens creates a nebulous scenario, one that one might hope to master one day. A supernatural being with creative power is beyond our mastery.
Wildtarg said
Fourthly, and this is a bit of a rabbit-trail:
The question of aliens seems rather spooky and kooky to the average joe. Even more so does it seem to the religious acolyte who has been instructed in a number of premises on the unseen world, but very little in the way of scientific knowledge. The emotional standpoints of Theists and Atheists are, on the whole, polar opposites – the Theist seems to draw some favorable conclusions about the nature of Man’s existence and the afterlife based on what he/she believes God to be like. In contrast, the atheist, exampled and championed by Mr. Dawkins, sees the prospect of God as a terrible menace, to be avoided if possible, but in any case combatted at every step. The Theist looks at their notion of God and says “Aliens couldn’t possibly be better than this.” In contrast, the Atheist looks at his concept of God and says “Aliens couldn’t possibly be worse than this.” So you see, dialog on this point breaks down, not because of a genuine difference of moral value, but because of a difference of perception on the subject matter.
Wildtarg said
Finally, and definitely a rabbit-trail:
I should also comment that if extra-terrestrial life did exist, we have no guarantee that they are possessed of the same awareness of the moral law that we have. One of the most frightening things I have ever seen depicted in fiction was not any super-advanced race, but rather the Velociraptors of Jurassic Park. They were not just intelligent; they were also amoral. Their intelligence served no purpose other than their own desires, much as a tiger or a giant squid. Many people encounter and ponder popular post-modern ideas about aliens: Wells’ Martians and Verne’s lunar society have been largely forgotten. The best example in modern media would be the aliens of Independence Day; concerned with nothing but their own wishes and plans. In my past, I played video games obsessively. One of those games was titled ‘X-Com’, where the player is a manager/strategist/tactician for a group formed expressly for the purpose of fending off the efforts of an alien task force to terrorize and subvert the peoples and governments of Earth. In the course of the game the ‘seed’ theory is put forth, and it is concluded that the aliens seeded multiple species on earth, with the intent of returning to harvest, process, and consume or experiment on the fruits of such efforts. Not a pleasant thing to contemplate while having discussions on the origin of humanity. Whatever Dawkins fears in a supernatural God, I fear more from a mysterious race with unknown purposes, and for all we know may have thought processes totally unlike our own, and may not see us as anything other than natural resources or a set of experiments.