Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 08, 2010, 16:46 (5198 days ago) @ xeno6696


> This will kind of be a summary of previous arguments--I just don't find this line of argument compelling. In light of the fact that we don't have a mechanism as to how life arose, your argument of "chance vs. design" is a false dilemma, because we can't reasonably compute the statistic without a known mechanism. -But we do understand many of the parts of genome reporduction. We know DNA, RNA, histones, methylation, enzymes, etc. The complexities involve feedback loops and the judgement of proper levels of various molecules that are produced; lets call that chemostats. We know that 20 left-handed amino acids are essential to the manufacture of all this, and right-handed nucleotides. Therefore, we do know that we have to get from A to B to C, and even though we don't know how 20 amino acids appeared, when only 8 are found in meteorites one should be able to calculate the odds against chance from that point. Dembski did it for the flagellum, and he found enormous odds. I just don't know enough math to even try. -But even further is the issue of providing both the code and the decoder, with almost perfect control over the decoding at all times. We can start with the assumption of an already existing single-celled animal, as simple as micoplasma. How did code and decoder arrive together at the same time in development? 
> 
> Even more probable (when considering a creator) is chance plus design. If we accept an imperfect creator (which I accepted that possibility long ago) then we have to accept mistakes; -I accept this approach also. If the mechansim for life included a code for evolution, then natural selection is a filter of influence. Progression of life forms can lead to blind alleys along the way. The next question is: is the evolutionary drive self-correcting or must it try a scattershot approach with natural selection left to sort it out? Both thoughts are feasible.
> 
> Another thing to think about. What it seems to me that you are arguing, is that since the creator still influences life, then that means that you are arguing that biochemical components are expressing attributes of consciousness. -The way the molecules shepherd along the decoding and reproduction process, several authors have said they act like they are thinking. Just a metaphor, of course.
> 
> Another thought that just struck my mind. Humans design things to solve problems. If we're ultimately an expression of the creator, then what purpose do we have? -Back to Frank. If we are created we are fulfilling God's purpose. And then there is the approach of Victor Frankl: "Man's Search for Meaning", in which he gave his life meaning to survive in the concentration camps.
> 
> Doesn't a God that one cannot truly commune with destroy the importance of that question? Even if I accepted a creator such as the one you've discussed, it still is completely devoid of all the benefits one normally associates with a deity.-Those are benefits you imagine from what religions propagandize. To me God only offers the benefit of living a life. Anything else He might provide is lagniappe. As for God's silence, that is where the requirement of faith comes into play. Another book: "A Concealed God", by Stefan Einhorn. I can keep you reading for years. )