Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
How is it confusing to suggest that the greater a level of functional complexity the exponentially more difficult it is to evolve anything at that level?
Evolution at very low levels of functional complexity (less than a few hundred specifically arranged amino acid residues) is easily achieved in very short periods of time because of the statistical odds of the success of a random search algorithm (like random mutations in DNA or protein sequence space) are very good at this level in large populations.
Since you brought it up, consider that nylonase, in particular, is a single protein enzyme that requires a minimum of no more than 355 averagely specified aa residues. Evolution at such a low level of functional complexity is very commonly and rapidly achieved. There are thousands of observed examples of evolution in action at this level of complexity and lower. However, as one moves up the ladder of functional complexity, such examples drop off exponentially. When you reach the level of 1000 specifically arranged aa residues, there are no examples of evolution in action in literature at all – none. Why not?
The reason for this exponential decline in evolutionary potential within a given span of time at higher and higher levels of functional complexity has to do with the odds of success of a random non-directed search algorithm. The success of such algorithms is dependent upon the ratio and distribution of potentially beneficial sequences in sequence space. As it turns out, this ratio declines, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement for a given level of functional complexity.
In short, what this means is that Darwinian-style evolution is possible, this side of a practical eternity of time (like trillions upon trillions of years) for novel biosystems that have a minimum structural threshold requirement of less than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues. For such low-level systems to be realized in a given population of living things, the involvement of intelligent design is not directly needed. However, when you start talking about higher level systems beyond the 1000aa threshold level of complexity, intelligent design is required to explain their origin.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@ken:
Yeah, that’s probably the argument that would have to be made – even though in reality evolutionism is no less a “religion” than is creationism.
From my perspective, of course, intelligent design and even young-life creationism are more empirically based and consistent with scientific methodologies than is Darwinian-style evolutionism…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@Ken:
Since all science is “faith-based” to one degree or another, a mix of both evidence and leaps of logic or faith into that which is not absolutely known or knowable, the only question that remains is what type of faith/evidence-based science should be taught at an Adventist school? You keep trying to draw a dividing line between science and faith when science itself is not independent of faith – of the need to make leaps of faith.
Given this understanding of the true nature of science and intelligent leaps of faith, why should popular secular ideas of origins that are directly opposed to SDA fundamentals be the only ideas taught in our schools as scientifically valid? Why shouldn’t we present scientific evidence that favors the SDA position in our own schools as well? – and why shouldn’t these ideas be presented by those who actually subscribe to the validity of the SDA position on origins as the most rationally tenable world view?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@Ron:
I discuss the evolution of the nylonase enzyme as well as other truly novel examples of evolution in action (which you might find interesting) at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#Nylonase
In short, it is much easier (exponentially easier) to accidently discover a new beneficial 3-letter word in sequence space via some random search algorithm than it is to discover a more functionally complex system, like a new beneficial 7-letter word, in sequence space. With each additional minimum size and/or specificity requirement of the novel system in question, the evolvability of any novel system at that level of functional complexity decreases exponentially…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
