@pauluc: Remember, the particular topic in play here is over …

Comment on The God of the Gaps by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

Remember, the particular topic in play here is over the mechanism that produced the informational complexity of living things. Your assertion that, “You don’t know exactly how it happened [and neither does anyone else for that matter], but you’re sure it was the result of some kind of mindless naturalistic mechanism” is not testable or potentially falsifiable.

Contrary to your arguments on this particular topic, it doesn’t matter if life has existed on this planet a long time or a short time when it comes to explaining the mechanism that produced the very high levels of informational complexity within all living things. The time life has existed on this planet has nothing to do with explaining the mechanism of life’s origin or its diversity beyond very low levels of biological informational complexity.

Also, the arguments for genetic similarities or the nested hierarchical patterns of the “tree of life” say nothing about the likely mechanism that could also produce very high levels of functional biological complexity – nothing.

So, where does this leave us. You are proposing your leap of faith that some as yet unknown mindless natural mechanism will be found that can explain the origin of life and its diversity at higher levels of functional complexity. Such an assertion is not a currently testable hypothesis. It may be true, but it isn’t science at this particular point in time.

On the other hand, my position is that some form of intelligent design is required to explain both the origin of life and the production of novel biological systems beyond very low levels of functional complexity (specifically beyond the level of novel systems requiring a minimum of at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues).

My ID-only hypothesis is just as testable and potentially falsifiable as is the SETI hypothesis or the hypotheses used by anthropologists or forensic scientists. All that has to be done to falsify any of these ID hypotheses, to include my own, is to actually demonstrate the existence of some mindless natural mechanism that is predictably able to produce the phenomenon in question in a given span of time…

So, there you have it. My ID-only hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable while your non-ID hypothesis isn’t. That means my hypothesis is scientific while yours isn’t. It’s quite straight forward.

Oh, but I should believe the hunches of great scientists who have demonstrated their brilliance in so many areas of science…

I know it might come as a shock to you, but even brilliant scientists can be and often are wrong. Even Einstein, who was long thought to be completely untouchable, as taken some serious hits this year. Fundamental components of his theories of relativity may collapse. That’s just the nature of science my friend. It changes as new discoveries are made.

If your theories are not open for the potential to change, for being possibly wrong, you aren’t doing science… regardless of how brilliant you might otherwise be in various fields of science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The God of the Gaps
@ken:

Animals are actually programmed to adapt beyond low levels of functional complexity. It’s called “Mendelian variation.” However, this form of adaptability is not based on Darwinian style evolution of novel functional elements within the gene pool. This form of adaptability is based on pre-existing pre-programmed information within the gene pool.

It might be nice if novel high level information could simply poof into the gene pool without the need for a designer. However, given the nature of sequence space, this simply isn’t a tenable solution beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

Yes, at low levels of functional complexity Darwinian-style evolution does happen via apparently random mutations and function-based natural selection. There is no apparent need for the direct involvement of intelligent manipulation at such low levels of functional/informational complexity.

Why not? Because, at such low levels of functional complexity the ratio of potentially beneficial sequences vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space is high enough to randomly find the next closest sequence via a random search algorithm. It’s like finding a novel 3-letter word in the English language system via random mutations of any 3-letter sequence. The ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 3-letter words is about 1:18. Given this ratio, the odds of randomly finding a novel 3-letter word is very good – especially for a large population. However, as the minimum size and/or specificity requirements increase linearly, the ratio declines exponentially. For example, the ratio of meaningful 7-letter sequences is around 1 in 250,000.

The very same thing is true of potentially beneficial DNA or protein sequences in sequence space.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The God of the Gaps
@Ken:

Why wouldn’t it be desirable to strive for a certain degree of flexibility of design? Such flexibility would allow for greater stability and resilience when presented with different obstacles in different environments.

Regardless of the motive, however, the evidence is quite clear. There are evident limitations to the level of evolution that living things can realize in a reasonable amount of time… and these limits are at very very low levels of functional complexity.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The God of the Gaps
@BobRyan:

It doesn’t matter who you are quoting, you should never argue that the ToE violates the 2LoT. That’s clearly not the case and therefore it only makes you look ignorant when you use this argument and it reduces the credibility of anything else you have to say…

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