The gene hunt finally paid off in May By this March, the tally had rapidly risen to , people and genes. Plomin says a forthcoming report will establish links to 1, genes.
- Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? « Biola Magazine.
- Cricket: The Outer Space Pup.
- True Bible Study - James and Jude.
- I LOVE TO EAT FRUIT.
- Intelligence and the DNA Revolution - Scientific American?
Each genetic variable found so far has only a tiny effect, either weakly increasing IQ on average or weakly decreasing it. Plomin was quick to sign up. Last year, he spit in a tube and had his DNA scores calculated by his research center. Now, during talks, he presents his genetic rankings. To Plomin, whose weight sometimes nears pounds, the genetic prediction explains his lifelong battle with starches and sweets.
Of course, he knows his percentile rank for predicted academic achievement, too. I would just give people an IQ test. Early in life, Plomin says, DNA may already provide a better intelligence prediction than any test does. Still, the issue is accuracy—or lack of it. Right now, the polygenic scores capture only a fraction of the genetic determinants of intelligence and none of the environmental ones. That means the predictions remain fuzzy.
He then compared the gene scores with how well the twins now in their 20s had done on a UK-wide exam that everyone takes as a teenager. Plotted one against the other, the result looks more like a slightly elongated cloud of dots than a straight line. That is, the DNA predictions and the test scores tended to line up, though not perfectly.
Some with low DNA scores had gotten great test results as teens. Others had bombed despite the promise in their genes. With this technology, you could end up branding an Einstein as a Bozo, and vice versa. It shows users where their genes place them on a bell curve from lower to higher IQ. A similar calculation is available from DNA Land. So far, the major consumer DNA testing companies have steered clear of intelligence reports. Given the history of eugenics, big companies have to fear being called out as Nazis and racists.
What's more, customers might not be pleased to receive a prediction of less than average intelligence. Take the testing company 23andMe, which has studied the DNA of more than five million people and offers consumers reports on 21 traits, including everything from the chances of having a cleft chin to the likelihood of developing a bald spot. Of these trait reports, 16 are calculated employing polygenic scores. So why not tell customers?
Others suggest that genetic models of intelligence will be used to compare races, ethnic groups, or people from different parts of the world. The warning was implicit: For psychologists working in genetics, the breakthroughs of the last year have brought DNA prediction of behavior much closer to practical use. In the public square, though, they face a throng of skeptics, who say their science is misleading or who disavow it altogether. Others say the great question will be when it is acceptable to prejudge people from DNA profiles.
But what does it mean to tell parents their kid is at risk of being smart or dumb? For Plomin, at least, the answer is already clear. People will want to know. Become an Insider to get the story behind the story — and before anyone else. Physicists have argued for 50 years over which of two theories explains how fish produce thrust.
Now a computer simulation has provided the answer. A far-out theory proposed earlier this year falls apart under closer examination, says a new study. In , an unknown Chinese scientist edited the DNA of human embryos. It was a step on an inexorable path to designer babies. Six issues of our award winning print magazine, unlimited online access plus The Download with the top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox.
Unlimited online access including all articles, multimedia, and more. The Download newsletter with top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox. Meyer is not qualified to write on this subject. Stephen, please learn about things before your write books about them, even if you are getting paid. It is a disservice to humanity to deliberately or ignorantly misinform people. Mark Ferguson July 6, at 5: Ok folks, lets get real, Stephen Meyer is not capable of tweezing out anything in the genome that real experts cannot see. Armchair research is just that, kick back and see how to get around a problem without the intense experience, and that's how criminals get caught every day with thinking like that.
All the "miracles" that happen every day in the Western World, vs all the dying christians, muslims, and jewish, in the rest of the world that do not expect to see a miracle ever. It's called brainwashing, just like what the creation institute tries to do, just like every evangelist tries to do. ID is a last ditch effort to show what isn't in the bible without saying the bible is a crock and a ripoff text.
You do anyway when you say intelligent design though Show how Yeshua didn't die in Kashmir with your logic. Show how god saves those who pray in Ethiopia just like he pours blessings upon the masses here in the States. Looser, your logic is plagued with egotistical garbage and the underlying drive to get rich off of dupes. I think all of the science jibberish just needs to end, and quit trying to come up with ways to say the earth and humans were possibly created. We haven't ever change, as far as evolution goes.
People need to not be so ignorant and realize we are god's creation. Adam July 6, at 5: Chris is right, and i assure you that science daily "comprehends" the human body. It has had everything to do with why you are still alive and well today. Step away from Bronze Age mysticism and into reality. We are waiting eagerly for your arrival. Randy July 6, at 5: Chris, you need to read up on science and study probabilities. If you did, you would see that we are not alone. Matt July 6, at 5: JDogg July 6, at 5: Response to Danny Jones God doesn't exist. God "the almighty" created nothing. Chalis July 6, at 6: July 6, at 6: Even if there was an intelligent designer which I highly doubt, but ID is still valid as a theory , there is no reason to believe the designer or designers were anything like any of the "gods" conjured up by man -- the Christian version or otherwise.
Let's imagine for a moment the ID movement found that "smoking gun" somewhere in our DNA coding -- undeniable evidence that there was an intelligent designer of life though I'm hard pressed to imagine what form that evidence would take -- even if intelligent design could somehow be proven, it still doesn't guarantee that a "god" did the deed. I'm half-joking, but it could have been aliens, right? And even though there is no solid evidence aliens have visited us, there is good reason to believe alien life exists on other planets and could somehow have played a hand in our origin.
Or, it could have been any other kind of intelligent creator that hasn't yet been dreamed up by humans, something entirely unknown to us. So, the "faithful" read: The fact that Meyers says he's a Christian is pretty revealing even damning when it comes to his ability to parse empirical data and properly apply reason and logic, in my book. And yes, I will read his book. I'm ready to be convinced if his argument is sound, but this interview doesn't give me much hope. Again, I don't dismiss the idea of intelligent design as a remote possibility for how life came to be, but I am disappointed in people who employ its scientific branding towards justifying their own shoddy entrenched belief systems.
Also, I take issue with the idea that because something "looks coded" it was in fact truly intelligently designed. Meyer cites the Rosetta Stone as a case for something that we wouldn't try to explain away based on natural phenomena -- that we obviously see the handiwork of intelligent design there and call it as such.
He also uses the analogy of computer programming. Well, the difference between those things and the DNA found in life is that we're talking about millions of years when it comes to how life evolved. Sure, only intelligent, purposeful design could create computers or Rosetta Stones on an accelerated timetable, but given millions of years it's possible that something that "looks" intelligently coded is really the result of life forms grinding out and competing for survival over eons.
Rosetta Stones and computers were created by intelligent life forms for a purpose, but were borne out by physical processes that can be pointed to -- chisels carving rock, machines soldering computer chips. What physical processes -- other than those of evolution and I mean the third definition Meyer uses -- could have borne out something like DNA? Was there a "biological factory" somewhere, where life was forged?
Just because our only examples of complex, coded things were created by humans in a relatively short period of time, it does not mean that the only yet unexplained example of something that appears coded -- life -- could not have arisen "randomly" given enough time and variation. Flip enough coins, or randomly generate binary code, and patterns will appear, but no one would argue there was an "intelligent force" behind them. Add to those random events a lot of time and the shaping forces of natural selection and random mutation and something that "looks" coded could well "accidentally" appear Virgo47 July 6, at 6: The covers of this book are entirely too far apart.
Even better evidence of an Intelligent Designer would be the actual Intelligent Designer, front and center. As long as that entity remains undetectable, then any other "evidence" is just a reason to sell books to silly people. Darth Wader July 6, at 6: This is backwards science. As a philosopher of science Dr. Meyer should be keenly aware of the folly of starting with an assumption and finding data to support it.
His main argument seems to be that there appears to be intelligence driving evolution because of the complexity of the systems. Nature however shows that complex systems emerge from simple rules. Emergence can be seen in the behavior of flocks of birds which seem to have a governing intelligence but don't. It can be seen in chemical reactions, and in many other natural systems. One of the wonders of nature is the emergence of complex systems from simple processes. Ascribing this to a supernatural power that there is absolutely no evidence for is dishonest and unethical.
Meyer is a philosopher not a biologist, he's not even a scientist. This makes as much sense as Nietzsche writing a book criticizing astronomy. If you don't like a scientific theory thats fine, I don't like sting theory, but I am not about to distort it, mischaracterize it, and out and out lie about it. Choosy biologists choose Natural Selection.
Check out "Project Steve"! Keevan July 6, at 7: On the one side of the coin are those who always say "nay", and on the other, those who always say "aye". Am i here by chance, or was there some ancient blueprint that got misadvertently dropped here on this little mudball floating in a suburb of a spiral galaxy? I do not know, I don't know whether or not i want to know, and somehow, I'm not too sure if I even care.
Do I believe there is intelligent design? Though, I am not too terribly convinced that there was a blueprint for humanity written eons ago, but like I said Do I believe in random molecules that just crammed together one day and said "hey, lets party! The point, ladies and gentlemen Mik Hamilton July 6, at 7: What if there is a fourth definition of evolution? We are using words and ideas of the mind to comprehend what is beyond the human mind so analogies must be used.
There would of course have to be many forms before that gross body, subtle gasses, then gross gasses all based on the mental impression from the first impression, WHO AM I?. What if evolution is not an evolution of form but an evolution of consciousness going from the subtle gasses, the gross gasses, stone, metal, worm, fish, bird, animal to human in which consciousness is full and contains the consciousness of all previous forms because from the beginning it keeps the same mental and subtle bodies but changes only the gross body life and death.
There is a reason for that. It's because of all of the natural impressions stored in the mental body necessary for the advancement of consciousness in the sub-human forms. Email me for more if you want. Aaron July 6, at 7: Mik, what you are basically saying is that we are living in a hallucination created by a higher thinking being?
Aaron McCoy July 6, at 8: Intelligent design theory would never withstand the rigors of science because it is predicated on an idea that can never be proven and provides no evidence further than the writings of scribes thousands of years ago. You can have whatever wacky idea about the origins of man or even the universe but please don't try to fly that flag in the arena of science.
Take a lesson from Francis Collins an absolute brilliant Christian scientist and don't try to marry science and theology its is embarrassing. Joey Paugh July 6, at 9: You need only read the first verse of the Bible Genesis 1: Now I believe the scientist have focused every theory relating to the earth and have completely excluded the heavens. They leave no room for the existence of other intelligent beings designed by the Creator that reside in the heavens plural. They are stuck on the idea that we are alone in this vast creation.
The Bible is relevant only to those who are earthbound and await the return of Jesus, who is God incarnate. Is it so impossible to believe that God also created other beings, that Christians refer to as Angels who assisted man in their development of science and technology? We only need to look at the pyramids of Egypt to know that ID played a role in their construction, and there are many, many other wonders of this world that could not been created with the technology that was available to the builders at the time of their construction. I have not read the book, but I certainly will.
Bart July 6, at DNA doesn't at all point to a creator. You're educated in the philosophy of science and you can't even draw a parsimonious conclusion? It's not too probable that there's a god. If there was, would his creations be running around killing each other? I highly doubt it. Give it a rest. We came into being spontaneously and we are continually evolving. It's time one of the right wing religinuts proved that god exists other than in a book. I think we also need to start teaching calculus in church. Aki July 7, at Why are so many offended at the idea of ID as an alternative explanation?
Truth should be what we are all searching for. If evolutionary theory is correct, then worry not, the truth will prevail in the long-run! However, I for one would like to see more research on Intelligent Design. I think it is the responsibility of scientists, philosophers and historians alike to explore all possibilities and I would not so easily dismiss Dr. Meyer's book as nonsense without having first taken the time to open it up!
Mark Ferguson - The only brainwashing going on here is by those who wish to silence alternative viewpoints rather than test them through disciplined research. I also think it's worth mentioning that the Bible is unquestionably the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity. For the New Testament alone, over 5, original ancient Greek manuscripts have been cataloged.
That's significantly more than what we have to account for the works of historians like Josephus, Herodotus, Aristotle, Caesar, Tacitus and the entire Mahabharata. What, then is your basis for calling the Bible "a crock and a ripoff text"? According to Bible scholar F. Bruce, "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it.
There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity. The Malkavian July 7, at None of us have any idea where we came from, or where we're going as a universe. I stand by what I always have, whether God exists or not, sometimes its comforting to pretend someone's watching. TK Jaros July 7, at 2: The Malkavian, is it not also true that sometimes it is comforting to pretend like someone's not watching? Larry AkA Askm July 7, at 3: Before attacking anyone, please, attack the argument. I haven't read all the comments yet so I apologies for those who did take the argument seriously and spoke about it.
But to me it seems that there is a huge question to be answered. If science is about knowing the truths of this world through testing and experience, then this seems to fall in that category. We all know that an intelligible message or information can only be made by a mind with intelligence. We know this through experience. The argument deals with information, NOT simply a patterns done by nature. This is a code. Random movement can surely make awesome structures, but not a message or information that is intelligent. Are we open minded? If there is information not just a pattern in DNA, then that implies from experience that there MUST be an intelligent source behind the code.
So, the argument is this: There is information in our DNA. Therefore, the information in our DNA must have an intelligent source. People, the only way to break this argument is to disprove the premises 1 and 2. I don't think it can be done. The argument is sound.
If it implies something greater than us, like a creator, than a person who TRULY is open minded will consider this to be at least something worth the time to look into. What will be the implications if God is real or if God is not. I think it is worth seeking it out. Are we really open minded? Before attacking any scientist or group of people, let's attack the argument. WowThis truly is the "great deception" button down your hatches people-- the Bride Groom cometh!
To dmpc, I have grown tired of those who slam the Bible without having even the most basic understanding of it. Your statement "why do people kill each other" is as logical as saying God needs to answer to you because you are not happy. First, get a very basic understanding of what you are criticizing.
DNA tests for IQ are coming, but it might not be smart to take one - MIT Technology Review
You will be able to understand why human beings have fallen short of God rather quickly if you actually read the book you feel so comfortable blasting having never picked it up. You will begin to understand God's relationship to those who accept Him and how He interacts with them. The archeological and scientific evidence that has reinforced what the Bible states is overwhelming. Wade Cothran July 7, at 6: It's funny how all of the posts supporting creationism are written in all caps with horrible punctuation, spelling and grammar.
When did it become the atheist's job to hold the burden of proof? You idiots came up with the idea of Jesus and Mary and the talking snake. Prove it without quoting your ridiculous book. Here is a link to a story about a Texas woman who murdered her five children: And, here's one more link about genocide in Darfur.
There's a peaceful, loving omnipotent god out there. Look at him up there. Lol this is completely asinine. Intelligent design is a misnomer. It's really "Religious cop-outs for kids and imaginative adults. Philip R Tully July 7, at 6: Belief in an almighty presence is a crutch for weak minded people. Religion was invented by the ruling few to keep the vast unclean masses at bay. No sane person would put up with the horrors that poor and indigent people endured throughout the centuries without an outlandish belief in a "heaven".
Garrett G July 7, at 8: I am an atheist. I have seen in some of these messages refering to Christians to put God down and treat people right. Why is it that people who do not believe in God seem to take strides in trying to care about others more. Is it just because of the realization that we are finite? If we are finite then who cares in the long run?
And would it not be the case that if we treat everyone harder, the more evolution will take its course. For example, if we just stigmatize fat people to a degree that they either do not breed or commit suicide than no more fat people, which will let the healthier people thrive. Immediately, this is going to be take by the vast of everyone as a slippery slope to race. But, i am not going there, for variations amongst species is good. Honestly, breeding between races is probability better than same races just having sex continuously.
Isn't the evidence in how attractive Holly Berry enough? July 7, at 9: After reading your posts, I have to say, if your alien theory is correct, then your comment that a "DNA factory" exists is plausible. Check out the Sumerian texts, then head on over to the Mayan and Egyptian stuff, along with cave drawings from ancient times, and let's not discount the centuries of documented UFO activity.
I'm not going to get in a debate over what is true or false and so on, but the entire human existence currently can't explain what happened and the origins of man; and every last person who claims a position claims a religion. Yes, science as religion when it comes to stuff that can't be proven with proper research, replication and observation. One also might note the recent and not so recent news about DNA, viruses, science, computers and programming. With all they are doing, they still must start with at least one sample of original DNA before they can modify, replicate or splice anything.
In short, anyone who believes in any theory that can not be proven believes in his or her religion of their own making. And that is the best thing about living in America. We all are free to your own opinion, even if its wrong or stupid. Michael J Fitch July 7, at Sound like a directed process to me.
SCS12 July 7, at If you are truly open minded, then the website at the link below has some excellent scholarly papers regarding evidence for the existence of God, etc. Carp July 7, at I would here propposing some answeres from questions by responders: It is not for the Christians, it is for the people who were fooled by Darwinian evolution. Only mutation is an undirected process Answer: If you admit that mutation is undirected process, never mind your selection, if nothing good enough could came up. The idea of millions of years is definitely not enough for a single functional protein to come up by undirected mutation.
Thousands of functional proteins are needed to maintain life. Read the book, and place your comments succinctly. Thomas July 7, at Many--not all, and I honestly didn't read every comment thoroughly--responding to this both for and against have problems in the arguments they presented because somehow, they end up "backing it up" with completely unrelated topics that have nothing to do with the book. Just had to put that out there. I cannot argue anything as I haven't read it for myself, but I do think it just might be an "interesting read.
Steven Rego July 7, at Even when so many of you accuse Meyer of speaking with a religious bias, yet so many of you do the very same thing except from your belief system I think Meyer does a good job of being objective considering he has a religious affiliation at all. July 7, at Atheist always feel uncomfortable even angry when the word God or Jesus is mentioned. Funny how something that is so "false" eats at you so much.
If someone said santa clause was real would it bother you? I love every atheist and will pray for everyone here that made a neg. Beth July 7, at I think it is funny how people say "there is no God", then go into the theology about who God is and what he should be in order for them to believe in him. ID and Theology are two separate issues which need to be addressed separately. You cannot argue that there is no God because people are starving, dying, murdering, etc While those are important issues to address, they do nothing to help your argument.
In fact, they only serve to show your anger towards God, which might be the key to why you reject the idea that he exists. Dave July 7, at By seeing these posts, I can tell nobody has actually read his book. The debate is not about evolution, it is about, "Where did the information required by the first cells come from? No naturalistic model has shown otherwise. Jeff Snipes July 7, at Allen, Evolution is, and has been known to be a blind undirected process since Darwin first put forth the idea of descent with modification centuries ago.
There is no thought, goal, or plan of any kind behind it. Hence the description of it being "undirected. As for the following: Under these circumstances, you would be very hard pressed to find a way for nature on its own to construct enough code for a functional replicating cell; such is the minimum for evolutionary processes to even begin any trial and error process. Darth Vader, "Nature however shows that complex systems emerge from simple rules.
Under those circumstances we would expect to see some emergent order. Someone killed their kids, therefore we came about by contingency and necessity? Where's the science in that? Why does the answer to everything have to be god. Just by this article you dont' even have to read the book based on his flawed conception of what information is. Keep this in mind also. Science has no agenda: His quest is to find God and when this hypothesis doesn't pan out for him he will try to find god another way. I must conceed there is no god.
There is a god in his mind and nothing will change that. And wat if we did find god He would not be the loving one in your bibles and books. July 7, at 2: Dave July 7, at 2: Ryan July 7, at 2: Allen, it seems I didn't have to read very far in the comments to find the first falsehood. You claim Evolution is not undirected and accuse Meyer of being ignorant for claiming it is so. Of course, it's a pointless argument, since ID proponents already acknowledge the deterministic nature of natural selection as one half of the Darwinian mechanism.
Recognizing this, it can be observed that each individual evolutionary event is, in a sense, actually random because it requires a random event mutation to take place before anything can happen. There is also a sense in which we can carry this observation further. As you may be aware, It is a disservice to humanity to deliberately or ignorantly misinform people about another person's views on any given matter.
Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter.
You might want to inform yourself on relevant matters before making exclamations about who is and is not qualified to write on this subject. Additionally, you might want to try actually reading Meyer's book or becoming familiar with his arguments - rather than seeking a way to excuse yourself from having to put forth the effort to do so - before mindlessly criticizing its author and accusing him of ignorance.
I'm talking, of course, of the DNA in your cells. Louis C July 7, at 2: Sheroniak, your claim that science has no agenda is sufficiently idealistic and ahistorical as to be absurd. It's a trend I've noticed in debates between ID proponents and Darwinists.
Lacking any convincing Darwinian pathways to answer scientific questions about development posed by ID, the Darwinist regularly turns from scientific argumentation to philosophical and theological argumentation, and as regards both they seem woefully uninformed. July 7, at 3: Richard Ball July 7, at 4: Standard, non-ID science is ID's best friend. The gap between non-life and life has gone from an inch in the 19th cc. The intelligence packed-into the simplest life-form has gone from a thimble-full to Grand Canyon- full. All the movement in the past 60 years has been towards intelligence, complexity and design.
Just keep gathering the evidence -- and then follow it to its logical conclusions. There is a Designer. There is a Creator. Life is the result of direct divine agency and not merely an intelligently designed, morally-infused process. Where there is information, there is a mind. Where there is information-infused life, there is a Creator-God. Scott July 7, at 6: The theory of Darwinian evolution from my understanding of it should be Start with a small simple program, introduce copying errors, deletions N.
Ryan July 7, at 7: Scott, It really does boggle the mind, doesn't it? I remember several years ago watching some show in which a couple of Darwinian philosophers and biologists were talking about how computer programs duplicating Darwinian mechanisms proved the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to produce the complexity of life. I was in my mid-teens at the time and mostly uninitiated to the debate. However, even then, it was immediately obvious to me that appeals to computer programs in support of Darwinian evolution was something of a non-starter, since any such efforts required, well, effort Of course, if your undirected process is being conducted by the application of various intelligent and purposeful functions, then you're not really duplicating an undirected process taking place in an environment that is supposed to be devoid of any intelligence or guidance.
And when you program the evolutionary target into the program and then sift through random changes to save those most suitable to achieving the target, you're hardly portraying a process that is claimed to be absent any teleological endgame. Richard Dawkins' attempt at a programmatical proof was one of the worst offenders. This is not surprising considering the poor grasp of logic he seems to display nearly every time he opens his mouth, which I guess also serves to explain the nature and character of his legions of adoring fans.
Paul July 8, at Accordingly, the universe is supposed to have started very orderly, decreasing in order and in intelligence? Strangely, information seems to be increasing. Humans are evidently quite complex entities. Does that imply that there was something more complex before, since the law of entropy suggests that we are a 'fallout' of something more 'orderly'. Evolution seems to be evolving as well, to greater complexity, not less, or so it would seem. The entropy model clarifies that order 'can be deceptive'… one can effectively decrease entropy tend to greater order by drawing from outside the 'closed system' that we are observing.
This however implies that we can mistake order and disorder perhaps there is an answer hidden away here as to why there is the appearance of 'good and evil' in our world, for instance, and of other things that seem contradictory. We just can't fathom and don't see the 'big picture' of it all.
Scott; What do Jesus and Mary have to do with the article and the points being made by Mr. Your comments are obviously mindless, spiteful and desperate. The evidence for the ID theory that Stephen has presented, is hardly deniable. Perhaps you didn't read his book yet? The arguments don't pre-suppose you to be a religious fundamentalist nor an atheist. Unfortunately religious fundamentalists want to claim a potential victory here and the atheists, perhaps defeat; that may be the fallout arising from this work, a separate issue and battle.
The theory could have been conceived by anyone… the data and evidence don't require any religious predisposition. One needs to keep and open and objective mind on the material and arguments presented. Getting personal doesn't win you points in this debate. The ID theory obviously has hit a sensitive spot in challenging your hardened beliefs, conclusions about reality etc. If you try to approach the points made by Meyer in support of ID, with an open, intelligent mind, you will see real sense in it all.
Try to keep religious discrimination out of the picture for now… that's all coming out from our 'human condition'. The case work for ID is very thorough, academic and scientific. Totally agree to keep ID and theology apart. We need to take one step at a time.
Share This Page
The Case for ID needs to be debated for now… but it certainly appears to be an extremely impressive and jaw wrenching case, for the moment at least. Brian Chaffin July 8, at 8: Ryan July 8, at Paul, What Scott are you directing your comments to? I agree with your points but you don't seem to be applying them to the right person.
Skails July 8, at 1: DNA itself has designed every creature to ever exist on Earth. It intelligently learns to adapt to changing circumstances, and has increased in complexity in order to ensure its survival in one form or another. Human intelligence is a creation of DNA. Can DNA prove the existence of an intelligent designer?
It is the designer. We human beings on Earth currently lack the perspective and scope to identify the origins of DNA. I think it would help if we saw that life involves many planetary and universal factors that aren't just DNA based. TK Jaros July 8, at 1: Perhaps it might be better to say that ID and theology are distinct? It would seem awkward to say that theology, the study of God, is separated from ID, God's craftsmanship, wouldn't it? Ryan July 8, at 2: ID is the study and detection of design in nature, period. If the designing intelligence happened to be aliens, ID as a theory would not find itself diminished.
Since aliens would find themselves within a universe that had a beginning and a product of it, it could hardly be argued that their existence is necessary or eternal rather than contingent and temporal. I'm not sure I totally understand your point. You seem to be assigning will and intelligence to DNA as the designer of life, not needing a designer external to DNA. This would be like assigning the intelligence responsible for the information in the Encyclopedia Britannica to the Encyclopedia itself rather than its authors, thinking that it is somehow keeping track of the shifting state of knowledge in society and authoring its own revisions to follow suit.
Michael July 8, at 3: Interesting that Meyers would choose the one vague category that could also include a supernatural being. It's begging the question: It is an unsupported supposition. Why don't doctors ever say that disease is caused by sin, therefore exorcism or faith healing are the best prescription? Because that's not what science or medicine are about. Even if confronted with a miracle, we must still attempt to develop useful materialistic models that are predictive and explanatory because miracles are non-reproducible, non-predictable, and therefore not very useful for scientific understanding.
I am astounded that these kinds of bad arguments are proffered in the name of apologetics. The interviewer and interviewee would both have failed my class on philosophy of science. Cambridge appears to have lowered their standards for Meyer. Dave July 8, at 4: Meyer's only conclusion is that information comes from an intelligent source which you admit.
He does not suppose the nature of this source. Michael July 8, at 5: My distaste is with the subcategory he has chosen. Since this is absurd, we can dispense with Meyer's logical argument altogether. Furthermore, there are no recognized tests for non-human intelligence at the code-making level. There are conditions of prior experience and intentionality that we can not satisfy with our current knowledge. All of this ignores the evidence put forward at the Dover School Trial that intelligent design is merely the latest species of creationism; a legal ploy to subvert Constitutional protections about government interference in religious matters.
Dave July 8, at 6: There are no adequate models showing how the information in DNA could have originated from unguided, natural processes.
That, in combination with the "intelligent source" fact we agree on, is a strong enough argument to present an alternative theory ID. Darth Wader July 8, at 6: DNA is not a computer program. It doesn't work like a computer program. You cannot treat DNA in the same regards as a computer program. I don't have enough time, energy or space on here to explain how it does and doesn't work, but the relating it to a 1mb program turning into win7 is a strawman argument.
The processes of evolution by natural selection are very will understood. There are volumes of supporting evidence, and not a shred evidence that refutes it. If you disagree with it because of a personal conviction or religious reason well thats fine, but you might as well support a geocentric universe. There is no serious scientific refutation of evolution period. If you choose to turn a blind eye to the the mountains of data thats fine, but to make it seem that your convictions are based on anything more than a blatant and willing misunderstanding of the theory and blind faith a bronze age cult is very dishonest.
Ryan July 8, at 6: It's clear you haven't even bothered to peruse the literature actually written by ID proponents, since they regularly address the objections you put forward as arguments that you seem to think they're too dumb to have thought of. I find your logic to be highly illogical. Does that have any logical implications? Since we see some degree of intelligence throughout the rest of the animal kingdom - something that, at least in some creatures, surpasses instinct - but we do not see those creatures producing specified information, it is logical to assume that the creation of such information could not be created by an intelligence significantly inferior to that held by humans.
This fact was well known to Francis Crick, who saw no logical problem in his theory of Directed Panspermia, whereby the complex information seen in biology led him to posit the existence of a superior alien intellect that had seeded this earth with life. He was, after all, an atheist. Further, you may have heard of the S.
Its members would dispute your claim that their search for alien intelligence is non-scientific and logically flawed. The very notion that evidence can't reasonably lead someone to posit the existence of something heretofore unseen and not experienced is contra science and is an assertion you might want to take up with physicists. And if you do not argue it about subatomic particles, why argue it about larger things? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. And if logic cannot eliminate the possibility of attributing creative intellect to some unseen, contingent, material being, who for the very reason his existence is posited the existence of specified complexity in the contingent biological entities known as humans is subject to the problem of infinite regress, then logic cannot eliminate the possibility of attributing creative intellect to some unseen, necessary, immaterial being, who by reason of his nature is not subject to the problem of infinite regress.
As for the Dover trial, I suspect you have not bothered to read any of the court transcripts for yourself and have no idea why the judge is being referred to by some as an "activist judge", a charge he actually tried to preempt in the body of his judicial opinion because its nature as such was so clear. But frankly, the issues surrounding the trial are too numerous to get into here, and the problems with the so-called evidence to which you refer too profound.
But what do expect from someone like Ken Miller, who can't decide what his argument against ID is in the first place? He argues it's not science because it's not experimentally testable or falsifiable, then he turns around and claims ID is to be rejected because it has been experimentally tested and found false.
It's amazing how much you can say when you've mastered talking out of both sides of your mouth. Dave July 8, at 7: Darth, this thread and Meyer's book has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Darwin had nothing to say about how the first living cell originated. In fact, many people who support the theory of ID believe in natural selection. How did the "digital code", as Dawkins describes it, get compiled into the first cell? Jeff Snipes July 8, at 8: You wouldn't by any chance happen to be referring to the early drafts from "Of Pandas and People" would you?
I'm told from a good friend that these drafts were not only central to that cases outcome, but that Jones completely misinterpreted there content. Maybe someone here would beg to differ? Or the failure of HIV to produce heavy quantities of new biochemical characteristics despite the fact that it mutates thousands of times faster than eukaryotic living systems?
It spent almost no time whatsoever on the objection ID has brought forth with regards to the power of evolutionary processes - evolution at the cellular level. He did give his own flawed interpretation of the Lenski experiment, that's it. Darth Wader July 8, at OK well biology isn't my specialty compound eyes made of chitin, eww no thank you so I won't post any more after this.
Snipes, Its Wader, Vader was an angry guy who wore a helmet and cape. Darth Wader is a happy dude who wears flip-flops I am the most mellow of Sith lords. Also I am aware that Meyer the non scientist is a philosopher is a philosopher of science. Lets say that that Karl Popper wrote an book refuting the big bang. Karl Popper is not a physicist or astronomer and while he may be far more knowledgeable about the subject than the the average person, it wouldn't be honest for him to write from a supposed position of authority on the subject.
Dave I am well area that Darwin didn't delve into the realm of abiogensis, Darwin couldn't even understand what prevented traits from being diluted, Mendel did. Just because Darwin didn't work on a particular problem though he did write that he believed that the beginning of life would be solved or have every detail correct doesn't invalidate his theory or diminish the importance of his work. Like Behe's work "Darwin's Black Box" irreducible complexity Meyer's central idea can be very easily summarized. Look at the rings of Saturn sorry but astronomy is where I feel more comfortable you see a microcosm of the ordered complexity seen in DNA but it is simply ordinary matter following physical laws.
I do however respect people who do hold these values believe it or not my best friend is a devout Catholic and can argue them with respect and levelness. My final thought is why not simply untie your faith from science. Perhaps there is a creator deity and chooses to leave no fingerprints. Maybe homage could best be paid by seeking to understand the wonders of "creation" but without looking for evidence of a creator.
Attaching faith to the gaps of human knowledge will put science and faith in eternal conflict because the stated goal of science is to remove gaps from knowledge. And one thing I think we can agree on is "FTW to the newage stuff on here! You really should actually read Signature in the Cell before making the sort of comments you do here.
You recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" because it was written by a biologist, however, Dawkins is neither a biochemist nor a molecular biologist, and I think you would find, as I have, that people in those fields consider him to be no more than a layman when it comes to the issues under discussion here.
What is more, I don't believe that Dawkins has devoted a significant portion of his academic career to origin of life studies. You don't seem to get this is precisely Meyer's area of expertise. Regarding the complexity of DNA, you compare it to the rings of Saturn and say that we "see a microcosm of the ordered complexity seen in DNA but it is simply ordinary matter following physical laws. You offer matter obeying physical laws as an explanation for complexity as though it is a possibility that has been foolishly overlooked. And yet, Meyers has a section of his book devoted to explaining and demonstrating precisely why this is not a viable explanation for the specified complexity of DNA.
It's amazing how willing and eager people are to offer their two cents on Meyers knowledge and the value of Signature in the Cell without ever cracking it open and giving it a read.
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer?
It strongly suggests an underlying psychological or social motive rather than a scientific or intellectual one. Dave July 9, at 6: Right, the rings of Saturn show "ordered complexity", but that is vastly different than DNA. Even if natural processes could explain the structure of DNA they cannot explain the specified sequencing. This is the difference between digital "code" and digital jibberish. Edson July 9, at 7: Nature just preserves what comes about by chance.
ID have serious philosophical implications. That's why the criticisms, as seen in the comments below, concern supposed flaws in the arguments and anti-religious reasons, instead of looking closer to see where the evidence is leading. Why don't you guys just stop feeling comfortable with the dominant atheistic guardians' view and, at least, AT LEAST, read the book to give an opinion without being ignorant? Ryan July 9, at You've got it exactly right. In a sense, ID is a call for intellectual honesty, and that's part of what makes criticism of ID as intellectually dishonest so ironic.
ID says, essentially, "Let's look at the evidence we have and allow that evidence to guide our inference to the best explanation for that evidence. Some here would try to argue that it seeks to deny the supernatural as an explanation, but it actually seeks to deny intelligence as an explanation, since as I've addressed in previous comments here, that intelligence need not be supernatural.
That is the very same reason the Big Bang Theory took so long to gain purchase And if the source of the intelligence was supernatural, what of it? If that is the truth, what is the value of methodologically excluding the possibility of that discovery? The idea that it is, by its very nature, a "science-stopper" is absurd. It was the methodological assumption that was responsible for the very existence of the modern observational sciences in the first place.
I mean, really, every single argument that has been raised against Meyer and the book in these comments is actually addressed in detail in the book itself. These comments might just as easily be refuted by posting nothing more than page references where the detailed rebuttal is to be found. TK Jaros July 9, at 1: Is it wrong for me to believe that ID and the teleological argument are very closely related? And if the teleological argument is under the category of theology, why shouldn't ID? Perhaps some more clarification from your perspective could help my understanding.
Michael July 9, at 1: Ryan I have read some bargain-bin copies of Black Box and Icons. I found them uninteresting. God of the Gaps thinking of the worst kind. Panspermia does not answer the question of life's origins, it merely changes the arena from Earth to the distant Beyond. Name-dropping Crick, as though he had some special insight on this problem, is pointless.
I couldn't care less about his opinions, only evidence. Your assertions on SETI are a good test. How would we know if a signal was coming from aliens?