Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis (ID and the Evos make big mistake?)

Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

However, Polanyi argued that the form and function of the various parts of living organisms cannot be reduced to (or explained in terms of) the laws of physics and chemistry, and so life exhibits irreducible structure. He did not speculate on the origin of life, arguing only that scientists should be willing to recognize the impossible when they see it:

‘The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.’7

THE CELL

[Coyoteman]

At least when Medved was here, he admitted that he made money doing this.

What do you mean?

He's still here under at least three different names.

[Coyoteman]

In other words, only naturalistic theories allowed. All others will be dismissed outright. I think that was raygunfan's point. Your naturalism is as much of a religious faith as my theism.

Not quite. Naturalism is a working assumption. If evidence shows up that contradicts that assumption it can easily be changed or modified.

So far there has been no evidence of the supernatural.

If you want to show that the working assumption of naturalism is incorrect just present some evidence to the contrary and its gone. Simple, eh?

(But you need evidence, not religious belief.)

[raygunfan]

and only you or like minded naturalist are allowed to determine what evidence is...

and as has been stated...if it points away from the god of naturalism, then it is IMMEDIATEDLY DISMISSED...CALLED ‘FAITH OR RELIGION’ and thus, you folks who worship at the altar of darwin, win by default...

what a nice way to stack the deck.

[Coyoteman]

and only you or like minded naturalist are allowed to determine what evidence is...

and as has been stated...if it points away from the god of naturalism, then it is IMMEDIATEDLY DISMISSED...CALLED ‘FAITH OR RELIGION’ and thus, you folks who worship at the altar of darwin, win by default...

what a nice way to stack the deck.

It seems like you want your religious beliefs confirmed by science, but you don't want to follow the rules of science because science, as it is traditionally conduced, contradicts a lot of your beliefs. So you want to change how science works. That about sum it up?

If you feel that the rules of science are too restrictive, feel free to do all the research you want, under whatever rules you want. There is nothing preventing you from doing that. Then you won't have to worry about what science does at all, or how "limiting" it is.

But if you don't follow the scientific method, don't call what you do science.

[raygunfan]

stop trying to put words in my mouth...im not asking science to confirm my religion.

i have stated here and elsewhere, the SAME EVIDENCE that you humanists use, is the SAME EVIDENCE we creationists use.

do you get that? are you following me?

it is the presuppositions, we come at it from an intelligent God designed it and we see His fingerprint, and you come at it from blind purposeless random time chance mutation....

same evidence, different starting points..

and in all analagous exercises, the complexity of information and structure contained in what science looks at, POINTS TO DESIGN, but in your humanist world view, that POINT IS DENIED OUTRIGHT....

so as not upset the neo-darwiniam paradigm...

dismissing the opposition by calling it names like religion and faith is a cheap trick, but typical of non believers....

[agooga]

I’m saddened by the way you insist on viewing science as the enemy.

I believe in the veracity of science, true, but I also welcome the stupefying concepts that science cannot explain— and wonder (with hope) if there is a God at the heart of all of it?

To me, there is no cognitive dissonance between science and religion. They don’t overlap. They are separate entities. That which science is incapable of satisfying is possibly where we find God dwelling.

A very real part of me envies those who believe in God and believe themselves to be saved and believe in everything the Bible (or their respective codexes) tell them to believe.

There is suffering in not knowing.

And I also pity those same people. Because there is joy in discovery.

[adorno]

Very good observations. Shouldn't science be allowed to ask obvious questions, like “Does the design we see in life require a designer?” Or “Does life's blueprint require an intelligent architect?” Or “Does the program of life require an intelligent programmer?” etc, etc.

Houw 'bout another, perhaps bigger and perhaps much more complex question...

Is intelligence something that arises just from organic material? By organic material, I'm referring to animals, including humans.

Does science understand intelligence in humans, or of any other animal? How 'bout, might trees or other plant forms also have intelligence, but in the form that we haven't discovered yet?

What is intelligence but the interaction of chemicals with other chemicals, resulting in the conversion of those chemical interaction into a form of energy which we call "intelligence". Whether the interactions result in electrical pulses or magnetic pulses or other forms of energy, they are nevertheless what constitutes the pulses necessary for intelligence.

Now, in the universe and everywhere around us, those same types of pulses are interacting. Who is to say that within the sun, as hot and as massive as it is, that there aren't the same type of interactions happening? And, if it's the interaction of chemicals and the different types of energy that determine intelligence, then intelligence is all around us.

The sun might be an intelligence unto itself, ans so would a galaxy and so would the whole universe.

Might intelligence be all around us, but we just aren't equipped to recognize it?

Could the earth, with all its complexities, be itself an intelligent entity? We might have been right those times when we referred to our planet as "Mother Earth".

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

To me, there is no cognitive dissonance between science and religion. They don’t overlap. They are separate entities. That which science is incapable of satisfying is possibly where we find God dwelling.

Strictly speaking.."Evolution" is not science. It's a philosophy masquerading as science.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

To me, there is no cognitive dissonance between science and religion. They don’t overlap. They are separate entities. That which science is incapable of satisfying is possibly where we find God dwelling.

Strictly speaking.."Evolution" is not science. It's a philosophy masquerading as science.

[Coyoteman]

Strictly speaking.."Evolution" is not science. It's a philosophy masquerading as science.

Sorry to have to break this to you; the theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method.

No amount of denial by creationists will change that.

(More proof: how many of those armchair philosophers are out digging fossils or peering through microscopes? Heavens, they might even have to learn a little math or something! Nope, never happen. That's why they do philosophy instead of science. That and the fear of working for a living.)

[armydoc]

Naturalism is a working assumption. If evidence shows up that contradicts that assumption it can easily be changed or modified. So far there has been no evidence of the supernatural. If you want to show that the working assumption of naturalism is incorrect just present some evidence to the contrary and its gone. Simple, eh?

Not so simple. You just told me that the only valid theories are ones that are "(generally) testable, repeatable and do not break any laws". Supernatural events, by definition break the laws of the natural world and cannot be repeated and tested.

[GodGunsGuts]

==What’s your excuse for demeaning Christians?

Seeing how you do everything in your power to convert Christians into atheist materialists, perhaps you should be looking in the mirror when you ask such questions.

[agooga]

“Could the earth, with all its complexities, be itself an intelligent entity? “

Some believe that the universe itself has become sentient. The fact that we, humans, have apparently evolved from the accumulated matter that forms the universe, we are, in fact the “eyes and ears,” the “minds” of the universe.

And perhaps this universe has many different types of minds— with the possible exception of democrats, of course.

[Alter Kaker]

We have good understanding of the mechanism of solar activity.

Well, that's debatable. We actually have a much better understanding of each of the four mechanisms that propel evolution:

1. Selection

2. Mutation

3. Genetic Drift

4. Gene Flow

[agooga]

“Supernatural events, by definition break the laws of the natural world and cannot be repeated and tested. “

Nor have they been definitively observed or documented, unfortunately.

The Amazing Randi is still waiting to give someone a million dollars if they’d demonstrate any type of supernatural power.

And as much as I’d like to trust a book written 2-5K years ago, my mind was simply not wired that way.

[Free Descendant]

If the hypothetical complex designer is somehow declared eternal and didn’t require a creator itself, what is the basis for that conclusion, other than pure faith?

Philosophy, specifically logic. Given that any finite thing requires a cause that transcends that thing and given that you cannot traverse an actual infinity (if there were an infinite number of events preceding this one, we would never have gotten here) then there must have been an uncaused first cause that is infinite.

[armydoc]

And as much as I’d like to trust a book written 2-5K years ago, my mind was simply not wired that way.

You're not alone. That Book documents that even some witnesses to the supernatural events documented therein did not believe. That Book also states that some were not meant to believe; they cannot believe.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sounds like you are open to the possibility that some kind of pantheism governs the universe. This is one of many scenarios that ID could be used to explore. However, for a variety of reasons monotheism makes much more sense to me, thus I am a creationist.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Sorry to have to break this to you; the theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method.

Nope.

It's a "Scientistic" theory not a "Scientific" theory and adhers to the philosophy of "Positivism".

Positivism is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Such knowledge can only come from affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. Metaphysical speculation is avoided. It was developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as the first sociologist)[1] in the middle of the 19th century. In the early 20th century, logical positivism—a stricter and more logical version of Comte's basic thesis—sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of the dominant movements in American and British philosophy. The positivist view is sometimes referred to as a "scientistic" ideology, and is often shared by technocrats[citation needed] who believe in the necessity of progress through scientific progress, and by naturalists, who argue that any method for gaining knowledge should be limited to natural, physical, and material approaches. In psychology, a positivistic approach is favoured by behaviourism.Wiki