DT writes [slightly edited] "Note in the following article on the extreme complexity of the genome, the declarative statement that it cannot be due to intelligednt design. ///-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627651.400-genome-at-10-a-dizzying-journey-into-complexity.html "-Far from being a "declarative statement", reasons are given for it.
 
Such convoluted mechanisms might seem odd and rather wasteful, but that is just what we should expect. "You sometimes ask yourself, 'Why on earth is biology working this way?'," says Birney. "But from evolution's perspective it doesn't have to look good in a textbook, it just has to work."
-Unfortunately, it only has to work in some of us. The Byzantine complexity and non-intelligent design of our genomes means there is an awful lot that can go wrong, and all too often it does, argues John Avise of the University of California, Irvine. Splicing mistakes and errant microRNAs play a role in some cancers, for instance. On the bright side, discoveries like siRNA could lead to potent new treatments for all kinds of diseases.
-The article linked to by clicking on "non-intelligent design" is:-http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969-Which defines "intelligent design" in a very clear way, but not I suspect, one which DT will accept, since his God works in more mysterious ways, his wonders to disguise as accidents of evolution.

--
GPJ

David: -Time and again, the argument "Life must be designed because it is complex" is going to be considered -1. Fallacious. If for no other reason than the rules of the game dictate that you provide unequivocal evidence. If you can't do that, it's going to look empty every time. You admit that it can't be done: and that's enough for most skeptics. (But thank you for being honest--you do more for ID than Dembski, and frankly, I've recommended your book to friends because of it.) You and Shapiro--who I read as soon as "Lucifer Principle" is done--are correct that if/when a mechanism for life is discovered, there's still plenty of skepticism left. -2. Based on the fact that science hasn't done it yet. In some respects it looks like bet hedging. But you're discounting the human spirit. Nothing is impossible where man is considered. I don't have faith in "science" but I do have faith in man. -3. Rubber chicken. Because I feel like one every time I write a post that sounds like this. I probably have written the same thing ten times. -Again, I don't accuse you of fallacy, etc. But sometimes I think someone new might be lurking. We almost had one, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

David has referred us to an article*** on the complexity of the genome which contains the following statement:-"The Byzantine complexity and non-intelligent design of our genomes means that there is an awful lot that can go wrong, and all too often it does."-The design argument rests on the fact that the genome is a complex machine that works. The fact that a lot can go wrong is irrelevant. Our cars and computers are complex machines that work. All too often things go wrong. Does that mean they were not designed? -The article links up with another one, giving details of some of the things that do go wrong, which it says "defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent". It's a common and cheap device to discredit the whole by discrediting part, and in both articles it suits the authors to discredit the design argument by equating it with the creationist arm of ID. The notion of design (forget ID) automatically implies that the agent is cognitive, but not that it is caring. Who is to say that the agent (a) did not deliberately design the mechanisms so that its creations would have a limited life, or (b) that through the very nature of the materials used, the agent cannot produce a design that will never go wrong? Here the author (John C. Avise) appears to be attacking the whole concept of design on the basis of his own image of the designer. However, his conclusion suggests that his views are rather less clear-cut, even if they are somewhat confusing: -"Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of non-sentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by ID."-The "conundrum" for mainstream religions is dogmas such as an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, and I don't see how evolutionary genetics can be viewed as an ally. I would suggest it's the other way round: the science of evolutionary genetics, by revealing the complexity of the genome, is an ally to intelligent design (lower case), but not to the dogmas and enigmas of mainstream religions. Of course it cannot be seen as an ally to intelligent design if you insist that the faults of your motor car prove that it was put together by mindless chance.-*** I have just read the various posts from David, George and Matt. To George I would say that I have no problem understanding your opposition to the design theory if it's on the grounds that a "God in the traditional sense" runs contrary to common sense. I'm only surprised that you should swallow arguments as weak as the above. To Matt I would say you are quite right that complexity does not provide "unequivocal evidence" of design. If we had unequivocal evidence either way, there would be nothing to discuss. It's all a matter of what you think is or is not feasible. I prefer to leave my options open. David and George have made up their minds.

As there seems to be a bit of a hiatus in our various discussions, I thought I'd go back to a remark of George's (23 June at 20.25) which succinctly sums up three central aspects:-"Common sense tells me that there definitely cannot be a God in any traditional sense, that the "problem of consciousness" is highly overrated, and that life pretty certainly arose from non-life by natural processes not requiring the intervention of preexisting intelligent beings."-1) If the "traditional sense" means an infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving father figure, I feel the same way as you, because common sense tells me that such a figure must have come from somewhere, that there is no sign of any such personal qualities in the universe or the tiny world we live in, and that the whole concept is and has always been a hugely embellished metaphor for the unknown power that brought us into being. It also tells me that if the unknown power doesn't care about me, there is no point in my caring about it.
2)	The "problem of consciousness", on the other hand, seems to me to be highly underrated by virtually everyone I know. All the mental processes, such as awareness, will, memory, imagination, reason etc. are completely beyond our understanding, and most people simply take them for granted. It's as if the words explain the reality, whereas they explain nothing. All we know is that somehow these abilities seem to be associated with electrical activities in specific areas of the brain. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity requires the intervention of preexisting intelligence.
3)	We learned recently that it took 2000 scientists 13 years to decode the genome, and still no-one knows how the parts interact in order to produce variations from species to species. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity etc.-The gulf between 1) and the other two can't be bridged except by an irrational faith in a particular concept of the unknown power, either in the form of a conscious god, or as a completely impersonal, unconscious mass of matter and energy. Common sense and irrational faith do not seem to me to make good companions. On the other hand, common sense tells me that one of these two concepts must be more closely akin to the truth than the other. It goes on to suggest that I have no way of knowing which one, since both seem equally unlikely, and that I would therefore be well advised not to reject either, and to pay careful attention to those more knowledgeable than myself in the various fields of scientific and philosophical research. However, it also warns me that the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, Nietzsche, Descartes, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, the postman and my two-year-old grandson have the same degree of authority when it comes to drawing conclusions.

Well said.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1-The article above while interesting has a limitation.-But it does remind me of when I started my PhD. My supervisor got me to replicate an undergraduate experiment to make sure my techniques were accurate. The experiment was supposed to produce a graph with a line of slope 2.0. I got a slope of 1.8. All previous similar PhDs had got 2.0, most papers seem to get 2.0 for this family of experiments. I went to my supervisor and he got me to reproduce the the experiment and find the problem for three months. I could replicate other families of experiments but not this one. Wasted three months, but eventually gave up and got on with my studies.-For a couple years supervised the undergraduate prac class only one time did an undergraduate complain they were getting 1.8 rather than 2. The final straw came when a fellow PhD student also noticed he was getting 1.8 rather than 2. At this point I went through the chemistry/math of what was going on and realized the theory was incomplete, the slope should be nearer 1.8.-Now my point - sure people will tend to give the expected answer/interpretation (I may have fallen into the same trap, I don't know). But science sorts things out over time. Tariq, the New Yorker and I suspect David are into an instant gratification mode?