This Week in Intelligent Design – 20/04/11

Intelligent design news from the 14th of April to the 20th of April, 2011.

Another week, another lot of ID blog posts to wade through. Not a lot I want to mention in this intro, particularly, except for perhaps this recent post of mine responding to an Uncommon Descent post about ID’s supposed scientific predictions. It was going to be included in this post, but it needed a larger amount of specific attention, given how important the topic is.

Other than that, this week wasn’t particularly noteworthy. Nothing that changed the ID/evolution game too much, just some ideas to consider. Robert Crowther wrote about the difference between promoting ID and teaching criticisms of evolution, Casey Luskin attacked the NCSE’s Steve Newton for over/misusing the word “creationist”, and Jonathan Wells’ new book on junk DNA got a flattering plug, possibly foreshadowing another book-promoting frenzy…

———

The first post this week is by Robert Crowther, and it raises some good points – but also some very bad points that completely outweigh the good ones. Of course, this means that he’s talking about evolution education:

A favorite Darwinist conspiracy theory is to claim that education policies requiring critical analysis of evolution are simply a guise for teaching intelligent design (ID). The Knoxville News Sentinel went off the rails on exactly such a conspiracy rant, misrepresenting Discovery Institute’s positionon science education, and misrepresenting the current academic freedom legislation being debated in the Tennessee legislature.

Like most conspiracy theorists, the editors at the News Sentinel missed the facts in scrambling for what they want to be the case. Specifically, they missed the fact that there are big differences between teaching evolution critically and teaching alternatives to evolution, such as ID.

One can critically examine current ideas about evolution without discussing replacement theories such as ID. Indeed, one can fully embrace the theory of evolution and still be open to scrutinizing various claims made about its mechanisms, especially the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. The scientific literature is chock full of disagreements by evolutionists themselves about key aspects of evolutionary theory — and, not surprisingly, without any appeals to ID.

I actually agree with the bulk of what he’s saying here, minus some semantic quibbles. Teaching evidence against evolutionary theory is not the same as teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, this is correct.

Of course, an Evolution News & Views blog post rarely stays correct for long, a statement Robert quickly sought to fulfil.

Just this past week, National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis was quite outspoken about her doubts about the Darwinian mechanism of selection and mutation. Margulis explicitly opposes intelligent design. Would discussing her views in a science class be tantamount to pushing intelligent design? Last year two other noted evolutionists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, published a highly controversial book titled What Darwin Got Wrong, in which they challenge much of the evidence typically offered for Darwinian evolution. Again, would discussing the views of these two evolution proponents somehow be the same as promoting intelligent design?

[...]

What is wrong with giving teachers (and students) the right to explore the views of these disagreements among evolutionists themselves?

Yes, what is wrong with that? On the surface it sounds fine – give teachers and students the freedom to explore the wide diversity of opinions out there in academia – but it’s truly a terribly flawed educational strategy. Teachers (and perhaps more dramatically, the curriculum) should act like a filter, only giving students relevant information they need to move on in the academic world. To give them the entirety (or at least a segment) of the academic debate on any issue in science would be both unmanageable and pedagogically irresponsible – how is a student supposed to parse the relevant data and arguments in order to make up their own mind about a complex scientific issue? Does any high school student, let alone the vast majority of them, truly understand the implications of genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer (to use them as examples) in evolutionary theory? Should they be expected to?

Dumping a purely academic debate into the classroom doesn’t do anything productive. Teachers are usually not qualified to be able to teach highly complicated biological ideas to students, placing an unwelcome burden on them, and students are not going to grasp the majority of what is being taught to them. Also, giving teachers the freedom to teach what they like in this area opens up a giant can of worms in terms of teachers who are sympathetic to either ID or traditional creationism possibly overemphasising or distorting particular views of certain scientists to make the case that evolution is bad or failed science. The opportunity for abuse would be enormous.

It’s very possible (some might even say extremely probable) that the reason ID organisations such as the Discovery Institute promote “teach the controversy” bills and amendments is precisely that they know the confusion they would set up in the educational system, paving the way for extracurricular forces such as churches to come in and solidify the new evolution-doubt of the students, while adding their own alternative viewpoints: ID and creationism. Personally, I’m undecided, but I lean towards this being likely, given the history of the ID movement and its past actions and intentions. Of course, they’ll vehemently deny it, but they would, wouldn’t they?

Academic freedom is not the most important factor in education: it’s academic responsibility.

———

Casey Luskin‘s post is similar Robert’s, but it contains a distinct lesson for ID critics, revolving around how to discuss ID in order to minimise rhetorical backlash:

Last December, I wrote an op-ed in Christian Science Monitor arguing that Darwin lobbyists abuse the First Amendment by relabeling scientific critique of evolution as “creationism”.

[...]

One Darwin lobbyist who (especially of late) makes strong use of this tactic is Steve Newton of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Newton isn’t shy about tossing out the “creationist” label over and over and over again in hopes it will stick. He consistently uses what Paul Nelson calls “the creationism gambit.”

[...]

In January, 2011, Newton wrote a response to my 2010 Christian Science Monitor op-ed which, not counting the title, used the word “creationist” no fewer than 16 times. (For a more-detailed response to Newton’s op-ed, see here.)

Similarly, in a recent article in the Oklahoma Gazette, Newton holds nothing back and puts all his money on the creationism gambit, claiming: “Discovery Institute is trying to get creationism into public schools.”

Despite the utter falsity of his claim, I will show civility in response to Mr. Newton. Discovery Institute does not support teaching creationism in public schools. In fact, we don’t even support pushing intelligent design into public schools, which is different than creationism. Rather, we think public schools should simply teach the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

My response to Robert’s post still stands, obviously, so I won’t go into that. But the point I want to make is that Steve Newton’s allegation of “creationism” against the Discovery Institute is relatively easy to be made to seem like rhetorical, not accurate, language. While it is true that a majority of ID proponents are probably creationists, the movement acts in such a way as to mask that fact, at least to a largely uncritical public. To them, the charge of creationism looks like an underhanded tactic on the part of the ID critic, even if it is largely true and a relevant criticism of the ID movement.

As such, the choice of path to tread here is a tricky one. Should ID critics keep up their use of the word “creationism” and make an important statement (which does, to be honest, reach a significant number of people in the general population who aren’t creationists), or stop using it and take the air out of the sails of these rebuttals, which simply make the anti-ID community look bad? I think there’s a better third alternative.

ID critics shouldn’t refer to ID explicitly as creationism, but they should constantly acknowledge and expose its creationist roots. Academic freedom bills being endorsed by organisations such as the DI should be criticised mainly on their detrimental educational effects, not on potential links with extracurricular creationism – this is especially important if the bills themselves contain language prohibiting ID or creationism in the classroom. ID proponents should be called just that – ID proponents – not creationists, and this label can be made into a negative one fairly quickly by exposing the pseudoscientific nature of ID at every opportunity. Creationism does not need to be the go-to label for denigration: make ID the bad word nobody wants to be associated with. Once that happens, they’ll have nowhere to retreat to: you can’t easily stop using your own language once it becomes toxic.

———

Lastly this week, Robert Crowther lets us know that Jonathan Wells has a new book out via Discovery Institute Press – The Myth of Junk DNA:

Forty years ago scientists discovered that more than 95% of our DNA does not encode proteins. Since then the non-protein-coding portion was labeled “junk” and attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

Now, biologist Jonathan Wells exposes The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery Institute Press 2011) and shows that contrary to being just evolutionary flotsam and jetsam, much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions. Wells, author of the acclaimed Icons of Evolution, wrote The Myth of Junk DNA in order to highlight the increasingly abundant evidence from scientific literature and recent genome projects showing that “junk DNA” is but a myth.

It’s possible, very possible, that we’re going to see another Signature in the Cell-esque media rampage for this book through the ID blogosphere, considering the “importance” junk DNA has to the ID movement at the moment – it seems like every third blog post is about how it doesn’t exist.

As such, the book already has its credible scientific endorsements:

“Wells has clearly done his homework,” says Dr. Ralph Seelke, Professor of Microbial Genetics and Cell Biology at University of Wisconsin-Superior. “He cites hundreds of research articles as he describes the expanding story of non-coding DNA–the supposed ‘junk DNA.’ It is quite possibly the most thorough review of the subject available.”

“Wells’s book not only informs its readers of very recent research results, but also encourages them to think objectively and clearly about a key discovery in biology and to approach biological research with more creativity,” adds Dr. Russell W. Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Georgia.

What a surprise: both Seelke and Carlson are ID proponents. Never would have guessed it. I wonder – will this book receive any legitimate scientific praise? Or will it be lauded only by those that already agree with its conclusions?

Either way, expect a number of scientific critiques of the book to come out of the anti-ID community when some copies of the book become available. Sandwalk is one to watch particularly closely: Laurence Moran knows what he’s talking about.

———

Rapid fire ID news!

61 thoughts on “This Week in Intelligent Design – 20/04/11

  1. Look a t the transcript of the dover trial, and esp. the judge's ruling. ID was throughly proved to be creationism by another name. The judge accepted that proof, so, as a matter of law, ID is creationism. As you say they are only pretending other wise. There is no reason to play along with them

  2. So what if the universe was created by God. That never stopped science or scientists for centuries before Darwin and modern biology. In fact, science was created out of a belief in a rational world BECAUSE it was the creation of a rational being. Otherwise there would have never been an attempt made to understand the world if there were no systematic laws laid down by an Intelligent Lawmaker.

    Evolutionists think they have a hegemony on what is or is not scientific. This is all a bluff. Real science is not based on ideologies that contradict actual observation of Nature.Life comes from life is a scientifically confirmed law of biology. Species produce according to their own kind is an empirically observed in all forms of life.

    Those who attempt to contradict these facts by espousing ideological opinions that propose neither verifiable mechanisms nor validation by any experiments, is mere pseudoscience. It is time to break the spell of this illusion and wake up to reality. Stand up for Science – real science, not this pseudoscientific ideology that is being propagated in the name of science.

    • Will, the irony in your comment is quite striking. It is the ID proponents that are driven by ideology, not mainstream biologists. What do ID advocates do with their time? They write books for popular audience, they stage talks, debates and lectures and they try and change educational legislation. What they conspicuously don't do, is scientific research. Their activity is entirely dictated by ideology and is very rarely interrupted by 'real science'. Most evolutionary biologists spend very little time worrying about ID, they just get on with doing real science.

      Are you a scientist, or are you involved in any scientific work? Is your interest in this debate driven by ideology or by a desire to promote good science?

    • "Species produce according to their own kind is an empirically observed in all forms of life. "

      Except for the times that new species have been observed forming, of course. You could have looked up any of a number of ready made lists of the times that this has occurred.

      "Those who attempt to contradict these facts by espousing ideological opinions that propose neither verifiable mechanisms nor validation by any experiments, is mere pseudoscience."

      No mechanisms? That's an amazing thing to say. Plenty are proposed, if you don't know of them then you're in no position to be critiquing anything on this subject. You're operating not under pseudoscience but under simple ignorance. As for validation, same objection applies. As to your facts, you could have contradicted them yourself with a mere ten seconds or so of googling.

      "It is time to break the spell of this illusion and wake up to reality"

      You first. Actual observations of nature contradict statements that you have just made. What is your response to this being pointed out to you?

      Oh, and incidentally:

      "So what if the universe was created by God"

      Apparently it makes no difference whatsoever. The theory of gravity is the same for someone who utilizes the concept of a divine being and someone who does not. Newton's laws of motion do not have a god factor in the equations. Even theistic evolutionists end up utilizing the same theory of evolution that an atheist would use.

  3. If you're dissatisfied with 'creationist' Jack, why not run with 'cdesign proponentsists'?

  4. Nomad wrote: "No mechanisms? That's an amazing thing to say. Plenty are proposed, if you don't know of them then you're in no position to be critiquing anything on this subject."

    I am a scientist. Where in the literature do we find anything but fluff on this topic?

    You are as worthless as the Bible-thumping fundamentalists who argue everything on the basis that "its in the literature." This is what evolutionists have amounted to – fundamentalists.

    Where is that experimentally verified mechanism for how a bacterium transforms into an amoeba – or even how a prokaryotic cell transforms into a eukaryotic cell. The literature simply spouts biochemical studies and then adds that abracadabra word "evolved" as if by the magic of uttering the word every little transformation of oraganisms has been explained. This is not science. This is not proof. This is simply injecting an ideological prejudice into scientific observations that actually contradict evolutionary explanations. The study of genetics, for example, has revealed their preservative character for cells, not their evolution.

    My request to all you little budding evolutionists or aspiriing scientists or science communicators – open your minds to what Nature is telling us. Darwinian evolution is an ideological prejudice that has hijaced real science and is funded by those who want to foster that ideology. No doubt those who willingly accept such nonsense also want to culture such ideology. But I hope there are some who are simply the victims of such deception in the name of science, and only need the encouragement to throw off such nonsense. Real scienctists aren't fooled by such scallywags who tare simply out to brainwash others into accepting their materialistic ideological fallacies and lifestyles.

    Nature is not materialistic. Try to use your common sense. A brain does not function to produce consciousness. Without consciousness the brain shows NO activity whatsoever. The absence of electomagnetic activity is in fact the proof that a person is dead, i.e that consciousness has gone.

    Perception, like seeing, does not arise from the organ of the eye, or optic nerve, or neuronal ionically induced electircal discharges. If you shine a light into the eye of a dead person, the failure of the pupil to constrict is an indication that the person is dead. Why? Because it is not the physical structure of the organ and its system that responds to light. It is the consciousness that experiences, not the organ or organism.

    When a person looses consciousness, it is not the bones and muscles that keep that person erect. The body will fall like a tower of cards in the wind as soon as consciousness leaves the body. Consciousness/sentience plays the primary role in biology not chemistry and physics.

    Modern biologists are realizing this fact and have found that sentience is present in every aspect of the living cell, regulating and controlling its activities. But not only biologists, physicists too, right from the beginning of modern quantum mechanics have understood the primacy of consciousness as the determining factor at the most fundamental level physical reality.

    Yet not many know that Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, held that view, as did Schrodinger, and many others. Why is this knowledge not known to you narrow minded evolutionists? What is common knowledge to everyone else, is somehow revolutionary, or psuedoscientific woo to you fundamentalists. This nonsense should no longer be tolerated. Let the real scientists stand up and challlenge these imiposter usurpers of the throne of science.

    • Ah this is classic. You claim to be a scientist and employ the "unless you can detail a molecule by molecule pathway for one thing to evolve into another then it didn't happen" gambit.

      Lovely.

      For an encore perhaps you can prove that the Apollo moon landings didn't happen unless I can provide you with a molecule by molecule record of every motion undertaken by the lander and orbiter modules?

      Evolution has been observed occurring. I pointed out that there are lists of events where speciation has been observed occurring, in violation of one of your oh so bold statements. I notice you didn't touch that. Instead you demand a step by step record of things that happened billions of years ago that did not leave such a finely detailed record. That's a convenient place to set the bar.

      You have an alternative explanation AND a record of similarly exacting detail to support it, I suppose?

      I'm not even touching the bits of your post where you go off the rails and demand that every single cell in my body is sentient. That would seem to pose some rather curious moral dilemmas. But your citations leave me with little enthusiasm for your statement, quantum physicists are not authorities on the nature of consciousness, therefore when they comment on such things they are speaking as laymen. You would understand this were you a scientist.

  5. Said Will:

    I am a scientist.

    In what field? What are your credentials (and from which university)?

  6. cambrianexplode wrote: "Most evolutionary biologists spend very little time worrying about ID, they just get on with doing real science. "

    In other words, collect data, stick to the ideology, and don't ask questions. You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what real science is.

    • Um… I’m just a lay person, but how does “sticking to ideology” follow from “collect data”? Aren’t you missing a few steps? If you are a scientist, how do you go about evaluating data to reach your conclusions? We would really love to know your methods.

      For all the time you spend commenting here, I wonder if it’s time that might be better spent trying to get some research done? We’ll be waiting for your papers on whatever to make it to peer review.

      • Nice to hear from you again.

        Observation is the first step of the scientific method. The data of observation are collected. That sense data has to be fitted to a pattern or law. This is done by inference or induction.

        Observing Nature we SEE that life comes from life – everywhere, without exception. Observing Nature we SEE that species produce according to their own kind. If we are objective, i.e. without imposing any presupposed ideology upon our observations, we must conclude that life comes from life is a law that Nature always follows, and that species produce according to their own kind is likewise a constantly observed natural phenomenon.

        To SEE such things in Nature and then come up with a mental concoction such as life come from matter, or species evolve from on another should surely be questioned by any rational human being because it doesn't conform to the observed data.

        Have people become crazy, or are these simple facts too difficult to understand? It seems inconceivable to me that anyone who has a brain cannot understand this. I can only attribute such ignorance in the face of reality to be due to mass brainwashing by materialist ideologues. Rise up and cast off these evil monsters! Come back to your reason people — be reasonable!

        • "Observing Nature we SEE that species produce according to their own kind."

          Now I've already pointed out to you that this is not true, that you could take ten seconds and find a list of times where this has not happened. Yet you ignore it in your response to me, instead telling me that every cell in my body is sentient.. and now you're repeated the statement that you now have no excuse for not knowing is false. In other words you've gone from ignorance to lying.

          Clearly observing nature is not a high priority for you, repeating untruths that support your ideology is more your speed.

        • "To SEE such things in Nature and then come up with a mental concoction such as life come from matter, or species evolve from on another should surely be questioned by any rational human being because it doesn't conform to the observed data."

          Not to hammer the point home.. but we've seen one species evolving from another. It's been observed to happen. Really, you can put this one to bed. You really don't want it to happen, I know, but it does. You lose. This is at least the third time I've seen you stating this after I pointed out to you that you're in contradiction of reality, and you keep on saying it, while you go on and on about how concerned you are about observing nature.

          Nature doesn't agree with you. You can't go on babbling about brainwashing while you keep making the same erroneous statement that's already been contradicted without looking more than a little silly.

          It is not reality that you are interested in observing.

          • Nomad: "…we've seen one species evolving from another. It's been observed to happen."

            Do tell us where you've seen this happen! This would be the scientific news of not only the century, but of the whole history of mankind. Maybe no one else has seen this other than yourself. In that case you should publish it immediately in the journals.

            Even the simplest prokaryote, eukaryote or archae organisms have never evolved into one another. That's why there are three kingdoms of life. They are the oldest living organisms on the planet. They NEVER evolved. Still present in their original forms. So stop bluffing and show us your evidence. Otherwise the one who points the finger may be the one who is actually the liar.

  7. I mostly just wanted to thank you for doing this, Jack.

    And that Will person–wow, it would be EXHAUSTING to respond to ALL the nonsense, but the thing that really struck me is this:

    “A brain does not function to produce consciousness. Without consciousness the brain shows NO activity whatsoever. The absence of electomagnetic activity is in fact the proof that a person is dead, i.e that consciousness has gone.”

    That’s truly breathtaking. So the argument is that electromagnetic activity is…some sort of spiritual thing or something? I can’t believe this person is actually a scientist–certainly not in a field remotely related to the topics at hand. This statement is roughly analogous to saying that “A car does not function to produce travel. Without travel the car is parked. The absense of any speed whatever is proof that the car is not traveling, i.e., that it is parked.” To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to suggesting that 65 MPH could somehow survive a car accident.

    • Electromagnetism is material – not spiritual energy. Matter is the object of experience, the known, the measureable. Consciousness belongs to the subjective experiencer, the knower, the unmeasureable.

      A driver is necessary for the car to travel to a particular destination. It does not start and go on its own. Without the driver the car remains parked. Similarly the brain does not do anything without consciousness. It doesn't even develop into a brain on its own without the living spark within it., just as a car does not develop itself without a living manufacturer to produce it.

      To say that speed and travel are similar to consciousness and brain activity is totally inane. "Travel" means movement and "speed" refers to the rate of movement; these are both objectively experienced. But the experiencer, observer or consciousness is categorically distinct from all such empirically observed phenomena.

      Thinking is indeed exhausting, especially for those who are not used to doing it. Just as running would also be exhausting for one who does not regularly do it.

  8. >>Will: Life comes from life is a scientifically confirmed law of biology.

    Where can I find this law?

    My biggest problem with ID and/or creationism is the shameless dishonesty that shows up in every aspect.
    Here we have someone claiming to be a scientist and something is a “scientifically confirmed law” and yet obviously know nothing on the topic and will not address questions about it. Flat out dishonesty.

    • Hi Alan.

      How did Newton derive the law of gravity? By observing the movements of natural objects. Right? Newtons laws are rational expressions of patterns of the movements of bodies observed in Nature.

      In a similar way, Nature demonstrates everywhere to us that life comes from life. Thus this is the established law of Nature. Is it not? Do you have some experience otherwise that no other human being has ever witnessed? Maybe you've been visited by little green men from outer space that no one else knows but you. Maybe you know things like this that nobody else does.

      That may be, but for the rest of us ordinary folks, we observe Nature and systematize in laws the patterns we observe. That is called science. Louis Pasteur set up an experiment to prove the law of biogenesis (omne vivum ex vivo) or life comes from life, in the 19th century. It was so convincing that everyone accepted it except of course the die-hard abiogenesists.

      Maybe you still believe that rats come from dirty rags. However, that was disproven long ago. Welcome to the world of modern science.

    • It's called the Law of Biogenesis. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Law_of_Bi

      There. Was that so difficult?

      My question is: when will you people stop being such knuckleheads? You are dupes of the evolutionist's cult and you don;'t realize that your are simply being brainwashed. I think they should all be sent to colonize Mars until they evolve some common sense. They they can be shipped back to join the rest of humanity.

  9. Says Will:

    I am a scientist

    I what field? And what are your credentials (and from what University)?

    From another thread:
    All of your response is an attempt to direct the debate away from a question that you cannot answer:

    "Where did god come from?"

    When posed with a question to which the answer is "I don't know", postulating a deity as the explanation is not an answer. It merely defers the question by one step to "Where did god come from?" (To which nobody has ever given me a straight answer, an avoidance which means, to me "I don't know".)

    If you can state clearly the origin of god (or at least propose a falsifiable hypothesis, in the scientific manner), I will at least entertain the possibility. By this I mean an explanation that does not begin with the axiom

    God is an eternal and absolute truth.

    If you cannot provide a clear answer, this discussion is over. Until then, I wait. And retain my atheism.
    Provide a hypothesis for the origin

    By the way if you're arguing creationism,

    life comes from life

    refutes it.

    • Hey Dj, again am inviting you to continue the dialogue in — September 2nd, 2010 | Category: intelligent design — In that post bogz presents a case for classic theism focusing on a particular issue. I follow his thought. Jack and the Flawed simply left it without explanation. In the other post you asked for the specific place. Sorry i responded rather late. Was occupied. So, see you there? I also posted a follow up.

      Anyone interested in the debate can follow there. It's quite laborious to rework the arguments here when it is already made elsewhere.

      Hope to see you DJ.

  10. Will,
    You did not answer my question.

    My question is: Where can I find this law?
    >Will: Life comes from life is a scientifically confirmed law of biology.

    You posted a bunch garbage and asked HOW Newton derived the law of gravity. I don’t ask how the “life from life law” was derived, or even what it said, I asked where I could find it – IF it is a “scientific law” it will be in the form of a formula like E=IR or F=MA.

    In case you are curious here in Newton’s law of gravity (from Wiki)

    F=G(m1m2)/r^2
    Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
    ,
    where:
    F is the force between the masses,
    G is the gravitational constant,
    m1 is the first mass,
    m2 is the second mass, and
    r is the distance between the masses.

    All you have to do is show me where to find your scientific law – or admit you were wrong and that it is not a law.
    -Alan

  11. Hi Alan.

    OK. Let's answer your questions one at a time.

    Where to find the law of biogenesis? I answered that question above in a reply to you. There is a whole history behind this law involving many scientists. The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35)

    The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35)

    Newton's laws were proven mathematically. He had to develop the Calculus to do that. But the actual laws of motion are:
    1. The law of intertia. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
    2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
    3. The law of action and reaction. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Not all laws are expressed mathematically. If you violate one of the laws of the State, for example, I would not advise you to use the argument," Well, they are not mathematically stated or proven – so I don't accept them as laws."

    Isn't it amazing how dumbed down Darwin cultists have become. I guess it's to be expected from people who accept fairy tales as science, or are so easily brainwashed by evolutionists. On the other hand, you may be just innocent folk at the mercy of the wealthy evolution industry complex and their materialistic media hype.

    As for God, I have explained this several times on this list. God is the self-caused origin and foundation of the material and spiritual worlds. As self-caused God possesses free will and is therefore Personal, from which we get our free will and personalities. God is Spirit and the primeval self-conscious life from which all spirit and self-conscious life originates. Thus life come from life is the empirical affirmation of God's existence.

    Scientific knowledge of God is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of conscious knowledge of what is what.

    • Will,
      I have only one question:
      Where can I find : "Life comes from life is a scientifically confirmed law of biology" ( a link is all I ask)

      My question is because I simply do not believe your assertion that what you have stated is an actual scientific law – I am not debating one way or another the life from life part.

      You seam to think Knowledge in general, and Science in particular flow from your assertions. They do not.

      I'll offer a second question if you like: Show (a link is all I ask – not your personal essay) a Scientific Law that is NOT formulated as an equation. A real, broadly accepted, in text books, Scientific Law.

      -A

  12. As for God, I have explained this several times on this list. God is the self-caused origin and foundation of the material and spiritual worlds. As self-caused God possesses free will and is therefore Personal, from which we get our free will and personalities. God is Spirit and the primeval self-conscious life from which all spirit and self-conscious life originates. Thus life come from life is the empirical affirmation of God's existence.

    Again, an evidence-free, untestable assertion.
    Why not just say "The unverse is self-created?"

    Not all laws are expressed mathematically. If you violate one of the laws of the State, for example, I would not advise you to use the argument," Well, they are not mathematically stated or proven – so I don't accept them as laws."

    Rhetorical trickery: The meaning of "law" in "laws of the state" [societally-agreed standards of behavior (which differ among societies!)) is not the same as its meaning in "scientific laws" (mathematical relationships between observed phenomena (which are universal)). If you were the scientist that you claim to be, you would understand this.

    • Hi dj, got my invitation to continue the dialogue at — The 2002 Miller, Pennock, Dembski and Behe ID debate September 2nd, 2010 | Category: intelligent design — ?

  13. Alan: "Where can I find : "Life comes from life is a scientifically confirmed law of biology" ( a link is all I ask) "

    Did you see the message I posted above? I will re-post it here.

    It's called the Law of Biogenesis. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Law_of_Bi….

    There is a whole history behind this law involving many scientists. The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35)

    The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35)

    Numerous scientific laws are not formulated mathematically. The three laws of Newton are not mathematical. They can be PROVEN by mathematics, but that is not the same thing as the laws themselves, which are established from observation of Nature. The law of inertia, the law of falling bodies, and the law of action and reaction may be formulated in mathematical terms, but all natural laws are not mechanical and therefore subject to mathematicization.

    The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will increase. You can write that as an equation, dS > 0 over time t. But that is not an equation (equality). It is an inequality.

    Then the central dogma of biology established by Crick states that DNA produces proteins, and not the other way around. It is now written DNA->RNA->protein. This is not mathematical.

    Life is not a mechanism. It is therefore categorically different from matter. Life possesses free will, therefore it does not follow any mechanical law. As Kant said, "There will never be a Newton of the blade of grass."

    Think about it. I am glad you accept that life comes from life.

  14. djlactin: "Again, an evidence-free, untestable assertion. Why not just say "The unverse is self-created?"

    Life comes from life. We alll know it. Is that not evidence? Why? Because you don't accept it as evidence? Can I help it if you want to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and deny what everyone else well knows?

    Matter come from life. We all know it. Just go outside and look at a tree, or the grass. Where do you think it all came from? For God's sake, look at your fingernails! They are the fastest growing part of your body. They aren't produced from dead matter. IS that not evidence?

    If the universe were the cause of itself, then the universe would have to transcend itself in order to be its own cause. Such a transcendent entity is called a subject that freely wills itself or a conscious person. That is not how scientists understand the universe — as mere objective matter. I don't accept that the universe is a person. That is called pantheism. The universe is matter, non personal, and determined by laws or necessity. A person is spirit, not matter. Freedom is the essence of spirit. It transcends matter. You can't measure the conscious "seer," or weigh it, you can only measure the "seen." How do you see the seer? Not possible. That is called transcendent.

    You wrote: "The meaning of "law" in "laws of the state" [societally-agreed standards of behavior (which differ among societies!)) is not the same as its meaning in "scientific laws" (mathematical relationships between observed phenomena (which are universal))."

    See my above response to Alan. Life comes from life is a universal law. It applies to every form of life ever known to Man.

    I realize all this may upset your current worldview, and so you may not be able to think clearly. But really this is all quite easy. You don't need bombastic scientific papers, mathematically obscure derivations and millions of dollars to understand reality. The materialistic scientists and their teachers (mutated spells cheaters) are simply trying to take your money and your lives for their own gratification. Join the revolution for real science and stop this nonsense!

    • "Life comes from life. We alll know it. Is that not evidence?"

      So three things, first off you're saying because you've only seen it happen one way it cannot happen another way. Kinda like.. oh.. I dunno.. I have only seen white swans, so all swans are white. Is that not evidence?

      Second, you are arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Believe me, I understand why you're doing it, your only direct attack on evolution failed and you've instead focused on this more sideways attack. But it's fruitless. All you need to do is have a supernatural being poof the very first self replicating organism into existence and then evolution can take care of all the rest. You're not obstructing evolution in any way.

      Thirdly, is that kind of like species only reproduce more of the same species? What ever happened to that assertion? You started off putting that on the same level as life comes from life. You repeated it many times, but failed to defend it, and now suddenly you appear to be dropping it. What am I to conclude from this?

      "I realize all this may upset your current worldview, and so you may not be able to think clearly. But really this is all quite easy."

      So, once again, about speciation… ready to accept it yet? Or are you not ready for your world view to be upset? It is indeed quite easy, heck, I can do it, and I'm not even a scientist. Watch how easy it is:

      Speciation is an observed fact. It has been witnessed by human observers, and occurs through understood mechanisms.

      Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to divulge your intricately detailed, molecule by molecule model of how YOU think life has proceeded. Since you demand it in order to accept other theories you must possess a similarly detailed model of your preferred concept. So tell me, exactly what methods does your supernatural creature use to create life, and exactly when did this occur? Since then, exactly when and how did this creator alter life into the form which it takes today? And please be specific, this is for science.

      • Speciatiion is not proven by any of the examples you refer to in the literature. Everyone knows that, or SHOULD know that. Bacteria have only produced bacteria, flies produced flies, flowers produced flowers, etc, etc, etc,

        This is NOT Darwin's concept of evolution of species or speiciation. This is simple variety within species. That has already been known since the begining of Mankind. Just think of how many kinds of fruits, flowers, etc. there are. But when you can show me how to turn a fruit into a beetle, then we can talk about evolution. Until then stop giving me your nonsense about explanations for evolution that never occurs. As if mutation, natural selection and genetic drift is anything more that abracadabra.

        Life creates life everyday, and matter. We may not know how, but we can all see it happening. We don't need any "theory" to tell us otherwise. Merely to say "evolution" without any evidence to support it, is not the same as saying creation with the evidence all around us. Problem is, you can't see it because you refuse to accept reality in favor of some ideology. You just need to wash your brain, Then you will be properly adjusted.

        • "Speciatiion [sic] is not proven by any of the examples you refer to in the literature"

          You've claimed this several times but have yet to give an actual argument. Specifically to which paper or papers are you referring, and where did they make a mistake? Be specific. Yet again, just because you say something is true doesn't make it so. Each and every one of those papers shows empirical evidence of speciation.

          "But when you can show me how to turn a fruit into a beetle, then we can talk about evolution"

          When you can show me how to turn your distant cousin into yourself, then we can talk about your family tree. See? That was nonsensical, just like your statement. Fruit doesn't turn into beetles, and no scientist thinks they do. This is a straw-man argument, again.

          I don't really understand how you can try to debate about biology when you obviously have never tried to educate yourself about the basics. Would you take someone seriously as a philosopher if they said Plato was an American scholar from the 18th century? How would you respond?

  15. Will,

    Wow, that is a powerful link, the first line reads: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." then it goes on for almost 1 whole page. Sorry I don't accept that as adequate for me to change my opinion.

    The Second law of thermodynamics is an equation showing the theoretical maximum. Most often it is expressed using ≥.

    Life possesses free will, therefore it does not follow any mechanical law. As Kant said, "There will never be a Newton of the blade of grass."

    You could be a Super-Hero by just managing to exempt yourself from a single "mechanical law".
    I'm really curious which of Newton's Laws you think your free will allows you to violate, perhaps it is the Second law of thermodynamics you are exempt from. Go sit on an Ice-block and show us your free will to stay warm.
    Let me know how that works out for you.

    Perhaps you are too busy reading philosophy to keep up on current events: http://news.discovery.com/tech/synthetic-genome-l

    • Perhaps you believe that Louis Pasteur did not factually exist, or that his experiment, which still sits in the Sorbonne without any sign of life, is not factual. Or the whole historical development of the ideas of biogenesis are fabrications. Is there something there that you don't agree with, or is it just your erroneous preconceptions that you are willing to go to your grave with?

      As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

      As for free will — what law of physics determines whether a man will kill his neighbor or not? I'd like to see you use that argument in a court of law. Why are you making yourself look like such a fool before the whole internet community? For the sake of Darwin? For what?

      You wrote: "Perhaps you are too busy reading philosophy to keep up on current events: http://news.discovery.com/tech/synthetic-genome-l….

      Maybe you think putting an artificial heart in a person is creating artificial life. Those scientists are sooooo wonderful, aren't they? NOT. Ventner has been putting artificial DNA strands in living organisms for some time now. But you know what? Surprise, surprise wooden head! They were already living.

      • This is a straw-man argument. What scientist doubts Pasteur's refutation of the 18th century abiogenesis hypothesis? This has nothing to do with evolution, and nobody in this thread has said otherwise. Evolution quite elegantly and accurately explains the diversity and geography of life, and is supported by every scientific field (geology, molecular biology, ecology, biochemistry, paleontology, etc.)

        1) How is intelligent design consistent with Pasteur's findings? The intelligent design "hypothesis" would be explicitly contrary to Pasteur's assertion of biogenesis. If you don't believe this is the case, please give your hypothesis as to the origins of the intelligent designer, and how it could be experimentally verified.

        2) Since you are asserting that evolution cannot, and has not, occurred, what is your hypothesis as to why the phylogenetic tree of life derived from the fossil record so perfectly agrees with the independently-derived molecular phylogenetic tree? Make sure your hypothesis not only explains how intelligent design would have resulted in this congruence, but also how the evolutionary interpretation of these data is false.

        3) Can you state explicitly why you have rejected all existing examples of observed speciation? See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht… for a non-exaustive list. You state that there are no such examples, but obviously this is trivially false. Is it that you just aren't aware of these examples? Or are you aware of them but you believe that the authors of all these papers are misrepresenting their data? Be specific.

        In which field of science do you work? Judging solely from your writings in this thread I would guess you are studying in philosophy — perhaps philosophy of science? Correct me if I'm wrong.

      • "Perhaps you believe that Louis Pasteur did not factually exist, or that his experiment, which still sits in the Sorbonne without any sign of life, is not factual. Or the whole historical development of the ideas of biogenesis are fabrications. Is there something there that you don't agree with, or is it just your erroneous preconceptions that you are willing to go to your grave with?"

        So, question. Are you implying that the modern concept of abiogenesis boils down to the same scenario Louis Pasteur tested for? Or, alternatively, are you implying that his tests regarded the hypothesis currently existing within the field of abiogenesis research? Neither statement would be.. oh.. how should I say it.. congruent with reality. Either you are lying or you lack understanding of the fields you pretend to critique. Pasteur demonstrated that modern microorganisms do not spontaneously appear. This is not the claim made by modern abiogenesis. It is, however, a popular strawman attacked by creationists who don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to current science.

        You cite the "whole historical development of the ideas of biogenesis", but you seem to have ignored the past half century of so of research on the subject if you think that the Pasteur experiments are the last word on the matter.

        Perhaps you're willing to do so to support your erroneous preconceptions?

        You claim to be a scientist, but you really don't seem to understand that there is more to the scientific method than pulling a famous name out of a hat and saying "ha! this guy agrees with me". Welcome to the present day, when we have multiple hypothesis regarding the origin of life, where the problem is that we may lack enough historical data to conclude definitively which of the multiple potential mechanisms were responsible.

  16. Justin: "What scientist doubts Pasteur's refutation of the 18th century abiogenesis hypothesis? This has nothing to do with evolution, and nobody in this thread has said otherwise."

    Of course, and neither have I. If you weren't so biased in your reading of this thread you would see that I mentioned there are several laws of Nature: Life comes from life; species produce according to their own kind; matter comes from life. You are obviously confused by your own irrational prejudices.

    1) This is quite telling of your prejudiced thinking. I never once mentioned intelligent design. That is not my thing. I simply stick to direct observation: life comes from life. Matter comes from life. Species produce according to their own kind. This is science.

    2) You are obviously ignorant of the controversy concerning these disputed claims. Where to begin? I am not going to do your homework for you. Wake up out of your dogmatic slumber and look at the counterclaims.

    3) Such claims of speciation are specious to say the least. The point is, no change in kind has been produced by transmutation, hybridization, polyploidy or whatever between distinct species. This can never represent evolution because they are all results of combining already existing varieties of particular kinds, not the production of any new information or species.It merely supports variation within species, not evolution of new species. The people who call this "speciation" as if they are supporting Darwinian evolution of species are simply cheating you.

    My degrees are in science and philosophy. Why are you so interested? I don't ask anyone what their qualifications are. I simply participate in the dialog as one rational human being to another (hopefully). It is not my intention to impress anyone with my credentials. Science is based on the facts of everyone's experience and reason. That's all that should be considered here.

    • 1) "life comes from life. Matter comes from life. Species produce according to their own kind. This is science. "

      No, that is an unsupported assertion on your part. What does "matter comes from life" mean? Is that a useful claim? Again, can you provide some references for any of your claims?

      2) Obviously I am ignorant of the controversy of which you speak. I have done my homework—perhaps you could give me some specific counterclaims (with citations)? Phylogenetic congruence is an extremely well-supported facet of the evidence for evolution.

      3) Another unsupported assertion on your part. Please take a look at at least one of the papers to which I linked and tell me why the researchers were incorrect in their conclusions. Also, what is a "kind"? I am not familiar with the usage of that term outside theology. Can you provide a rigorous scientific definition please?

      You have a degree in "science"? The reason I ask is because without exception your arguments consist of freshman- or even highschool-level misunderstandings of biology (and science in general). Just because you say something doesn't necessarily make it true—you need to either give a peer-reviewed citation, or back up your claim with a rational argument. I would have thought with a degree in philosophy that would have been covered at some point.

      • Justin. You asked what are kinds?

        Kind means "the same kind of species." The Law of Nature is that Species produce according to their own kind (of species)

        Look at the so-called speciation examples you referred to. Despite all the combinations, mutations and permutations you will find that bacteria produce only varieties of other bacteria, fruits produce fruits, flies produce flies, flowers produce flowers. These different types of living organisms are referred to as kinds of species. The law of Nature is that species produce only according to their own kind. This is verified in every one of your examples. There is a big difference between variety WITHIN a species and evolution OF species from one another.The law of Nature is: Species produce according to their own kind (of species).

        As far as the gospel of evolution is concerned, you will have to look outside your books and journals to find what the critique of those claims are. Scientists statements are not the word of God. Great turmoil now exists within the field of evolution biology. Neo-Darwinism is dead. The phylogentic tree has been chopped down to a bush or some think grass. The fossil record and geological column has been in dispute ever since Darwin. The gene-centric theory of organisms is being challenged by epigeneticists. Consciousness based reality has been proposed from time immemorial and in recent history has received support from quantum theoreticians, foremost among them the father of quantum theory, Max Planck. A new concept of science called biocentrism is advocating this type of reconeptualization of scientific reality.

        Science changes its so-called knowledge regularly. Thoms Khun made this very clear in his book, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But knowledge that changes every century is not called knowledge. It is called mistake. Yet this is presented in the name of knowledge or science.

        To undertand actual knowledge requires a different process which the empirical scientific method can never comprehend on its own. But to understand that, you will first have to understand the actual laws of Nature. Then we can talk about how to get real knowledge.

        • As you should be well aware from your education in philosophy, none of your claims are actual rational arguments—they're simply assertions on your part. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so. The papers to which I linked go into great detail about these many cases of observed speciation, and you still have not presented a single actual rational argument against them.

          Can you support any single one of the claims in this post with a rational argument? For instance, you say, "knowledge that changes every century is not called knowledge. It is called mistake". Every field of science changes as new data are gathered, new hypotheses tested, et cetera. It follows from this statement that you think every single field of science is "called mistake" [sic]. Is that what you truly believe? You appeal to the authority of Max Planck. Since physics was changed greatly with the development of quantum theory, according to you it therefore is "called mistake". Why do you drop his name here, if physics is "called mistake"?

  17. Will,

    My degrees are in science and philosophy. Why are you so interested? I don't ask anyone what their qualifications are.

    The reason we are interested is that you consistently miss-apply both science and philosophy. You don't recognize your own logical fallacies when you are making them, or if you do, you assume that we wont. I agree with Justin when he speculates that you are a student in philosophy. You know the big words, just not how to use them correctly.

    Someone once said (paraphrasing – and I don't remember who) that the way to impress people is not to get the big things right, it is to not get the little things wrong.

    As for free will — what law of physics determines whether a man will kill his neighbor or not? I'd like to see you use that argument in a court of law. Why are you making yourself look like such a fool before the whole internet community? For the sake of Darwin? For what?

    This is such a perfect example – and I assume you haven't a clue as to what you've screwed up. Degrees in science and philosophy indeed. Your professors must be proud.

    • Good. I'm glad you didn't venture an argument. I really don't like embarassing you. I do have your best interest at heart.

      Let's see how far your laws of physics get you:

      A psychiatrist who believed in determinism (everything controlled by the laws of nature), taught it, wrote books on it, etc. was captured one day by a serial killer. The killer tied him up in a chair and told him, "If you can convince me NOt to kill you I will spare your life."

      • What if what you call the colour green is what I call the colour blue? What if everyone is a figment of my imagination? What if my senses are wrong? Can I trust anything I experience through my senses? "This sentence is false" — am I lying?

        Did I miss any?

  18. Mattbrer come from life.

    Wow! Clear evidence that the law of conservation of matter/energy is wrong! Nobel Prize stuff here!

    We all know it.

    Who's "we"? I presume that you are using the exclusive plural 'we' ("the speaker and at [from context here] least two other people not present"), rather than the inclusive plural ("the speaker, the listener and at least one other person who may or may not be present"), because I am certainly not a member of the group to which you refer.

    Bah. An evidence-free assertion of a self-created deity followed by increasingly topologically-improbable convolutions of "logic" to fit observations to the axiom.

    … After all this hilarity, I'm calling "Poe". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law].

    Good One Will!

    (The alternative explanation is certainly more libelous.)

  19. Sorry about the misplaced 'br' in "mattbrer"
    Not sure what happened….

  20. Happy Easter Jack and everyone.

    May the Lord of Love and Creation, killed by sin and forgetfulness, role away the stone in our hearts that hides His resting place, and again be resurrected in our lives.

  21. Wow. Just Wow.
    In case you're actually serious, google 'Photosynthesis'.

    • Go ahead dj – put a jar of water, air and dirt out in the sun, and let's see your glib photosynthesis do its work. Even a humble blade of grass is a better scientist than you. Only the living cells of a blade of grass will work. Dead grass won't do it, Life is essential to the whole process.

      I give those little micro scientists a lot of credit. They are doing a marvelous job according to their capacity. The most important characteristic of Nature is that it is alive, ever fresh and renewing itself. If it were dead it would putrefy and become a stinking heap of chemicals.

      You too are able to digest and maintain your body because you are alive. Take away the life and you too would putrefy and become a stinking heap of chemicals.

      • Go ahead, Will – put a copper wire, a lightbulb and a switch out on the table, and let's see your glib electricity do its work. Even a humble lightbulb is a better electrician than you. Only the living electrons of electricity will work. Dead wires won't do it, electricity is essential to the whole process.

        • Hi Justin,

          It seems you are grasping at straws (or wries). Although people speak of "live" wires, electrons are not alive and neither are wires according to all the modern scientific books on the subject last time I checked. What have light bulbs to do with grass, or electricity with life??? If you hook up an electric current to a dead blade of grass do you think it would exhibit photosynthesis?

          I know. You must think that Frankenstein is real, don't you.

      • I never denied (nor even remotely implied!) that photosynthesis occurs in the absence of life. My point, If you are capable of grasping it is that

        Matter come from life.

        [sic] From the context of the source of this quote and from previous posts, I infer that you mean than life creates matter. Do I misunderstand?

  22. (sigh! This site really needs a 'preview' option. Or I need to proofread my writing before I send it. Or preferably both.) [Perhaps I can claim that I hit the send button accidentally...]

    I never denied (nor even remotely implied!) that photosynthesis occurs in the absence of life. My point, it is that

    Matter come from life

    [sic] conflicts with the LAW of conservation of matter/energy. From the context of the source of this quote and from previous posts, I infer that you mean than life creates matter de novo.

    Do I misunderstand?

    • Hi dj.

      Certainly life manufactures matter using its own energy.Science defines energy s the ability to do work. Where does that ability come from? We may call it potential energy or unmanifest energy. In Samkhya philosophy of India, for instance, material energy in its unmanifest or potential existence is called "mahatattva" (the great unmanifest truth). In Aristotle, matter was referred to in Greek as "dunamis" or "dynamis." It also means potential. In his conception matter was potentially able to take on numerous forms, just like a potter can make many different forms from clay.

      The forming principle is called in Greek "enetelechy," It is an inner teleological principle and as such subjective, but not belonging to an external subject like the potter. It inheres in the matter itself but as a separate principle. Just like sugar is sweet for us in our perception, but we also consider the sugar to have the property of sweetness in itself.

      There are many philosophies that have dealt with these issues. Modern science is a late comer and not the only way or most comprehensive way of understanding things. Modern science completely misses the whole phenomenal range of mental, intellectual and spiritual essences. It is a woefully truncated conception of reality.

      There is much room for deep study in this field. It is not that merely chemistry and physics have monopolized the whole of knowledge. i can only give some brief hints here. There is a whole body of knowledge that goes back into the primeval roots of existence found in the most ancient of writings. Modern thinking is so conceited that it thinks that all people before them were somehow idiots and only they have any real intelligence. This is so wrong and completely inverted.

      What happened to cover and practically destroy the knowledge of the past, will also happen to present knowledge. To understand why and how that happens is as important as reclaiming that knowledge. But first we have to get beyond much of the superficial silliness that goes on in the name of modern science before we can get to know about those things. This is not bashing science, but psuedoscience that is being presented in the name of actual science.

      • We never hear of this in our physics books. But Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, held this view at the foundation of his thought.

        "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." (31 Jan 1931 in "The Observer")

        If this violates the law of conservation of matter/energy or not we will have to look into his papers to see if that is or is not the case.

        • There's a reason that we don't see that in any physics book, and that's because that quote has nothing to do with physics (nor biology, for that matter). It's a statement of opinion, and this is yet another appeal to authority fallacy.

      • Certainly life manufactures matter using its own energy

        Like I said earlier: Nobel prize material. Prove it and you will solve all kinds of problems.
        On a serious note: you should return to the university that gave you your science degree and demand your money back.

        I've had enough of this nonsense.
        I'm outa here.

      • "Certainly life manufactures matter using its own energy"

        No, it doesn't.

        "This is not bashing science, but psuedoscience that is being presented in the name of actual science. "

        Judging from your posts here, I take it you believe a better scientific method is quotemining scientific authorities in unrelated fields and pasting quotes from your philosophy textbook? Can you formalize your view of what the scientific method should be?

        • Justin: "Can you formalize your view of what the scientific method should be?"

          Yes.

          You observer that life comes from life in Nature. You conclude that life comes from life.
          You observe that matter comes from life in Nature. You conclude that matter comes from life.
          You observe that dogs come from dogs, people come from people, etc. You conclude that species produce according to their own kind.

          Observation – conclusion. This is the scientific method.

          • "You observer that life comes from life in Nature. You conclude that life comes from life. "

            This is a tautology.

            "You observe that matter comes from life in Nature. You conclude that matter comes from life. "

            This is simply false. Matter does not come from life. Take a look at any highschool-level physics or general science textbook for more information on the Law of Conservation of Matter.

            "You observe that dogs come from dogs, people come from people, etc. You conclude that species produce according to their own kind."

            This is a non sequitur. In -your- observations, you have seen that dogs come from dogs, etc., but as can be seen by actual scientific research, speciation can and does happen and can be observed empirically. You still have yet to put forward any specific criticism of any of the papers on this subject that you dismissed off-hand. Have you read any of them? Many are open access.

            "Observation – conclusion. This is the scientific method. "

            I observe that the sky is blue. I conclude that it is blue because it is full of blue food colouring. According to your definition of the scientific method, this is a scientific conclusion. Can you give a more robust definition of what you think the scientific method should be?

  23. Hey Dj, again i'm reiterating my earlier invite to continue our dialogue in — The 2002 Miller, Pennock, Dembski and Behe ID debate September 2nd, 2010 | Category: intelligent design —

    In that post bogz presents a case for the origin of physical reality that ends up friendly to classic theism and inimical to materialism. The good thing is that bogz is zeroing in on that very particular issue and not getting lost chasing too many rabbits. The issue is foundational to the debate you're having with Will.

    If the matter is not dealt with then the tendency is that we will not be on the same page in the discussion and we will not go anywhere, we will simply talk past each other, generating more heat than light. That's the reason i do not attempt to engage here because there's just too many rabbits to chase.

    So, see you there? I also posted a follow up.

  24. Stop press. Compelling argument has been made on YouTube comments section! All scientists and proponents of evolutionary biology can now give up. No need to submit your paper to peer review, cos the real science is being done on YouTube comments thread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>