In his rant against intelligent design theory , Yudkowsky seems to have overlooked a simple fact. Darwinian Evolution is irrelevant to the whole discussion. Darwinian Evolution is only operative and relevant from the moment you have a DNA based organism capable of self replication. (I know that there are highly speculative theories of earlier “simpler” self replicating molecules. There is no evidence at all that they ever actually existed, and no one has ever seen one outside of a laboratory where even the highly limited ability to self replicate is a product of the intelligent design of the chemists and microbiologists involved)
Since absolutely no one has ever come up with anything even approaching a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life from non-life, the obvious truth is that the first DNA based bacterium (the simplest life form we know of) with it’s staggeringly functionally complex digital code was created by a supernatural intelligence.
Again, all forms of life are possible (I.e. Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection are possible) if, and only if, the proper molecular machinery is in place. The irony is that not only is Darwinian Evolution not an explanation nor the cause of the fantastic and astounding functional complexity of life on this planet, Darwinian Evolution is a process that is the result of the astounding functional complexity of life on this planet.
This is stupid. I’m a theist and I think it’s stupid. I didn’t downvote you because −8 points is probably enough to get the point across, but let me explain what I dislike about your argument.
First, you’re seizing on one small fact that the author didn’t even bring up in order to dismiss an entire article. The article says nothing about how bacterial life evolved; as far as this article is concerned, we can go ahead and agree that God created bacterial life. Your blanket assertion that evolution is “irrelevant to the whole discussion” is rude, and pretty much has things backward—it’s not “Darwinian Evolution” that’s irrelevant to a discussion about how wasps and elephants evolved; it’s bacterial evolution that’s irrelevant. Wasps and elephants are exactly the sort of thing Darwin studied, whereas Darwin barely knew anything and barely said anything about bacteria.
Second, suppose you’re right. Suppose DNA and the molecular machinery that lets it reproduce were intelligently designed by a benevolent, Judeo-Christian God. The problem is that history and biology still show us a world that’s full of apparently unnecessary suffering, inefficiency, and cruelty. Yes, there is a staggering amount of complexity and beauty. So what? Why did God design DNA that He knew would in turn design wasps that eat their prey alive from the inside out? Isn’t that a really, really weird thing for a benevolent, all-powerful God to do? Doesn’t it surprise you that He apparently did that? Doesn’t that surprise lead you to wonder if maybe you got one of your assumptions wrong?
moedavid, Darwininan evolution is relevant from the moment you have anything that replicates itself—any of the hypothesized simpler replicators would have been subject to the same process of selection-by-survival that drives the evolution of modern life forms.
It’s a mistake to look at modern bacteria as if they were the first life on Earth. A modern bacterium is the product of billions of years of evolutionary refinement, and the short lifespans of many bacteria mean that they can cram more evolutionary iterations into that time than more long-lived organisms can. They may well be genetically further away from the First Cell than we are.
Also, there is a big leap from ‘we haven’t been able to determine the exact naturalistic mechanism by which DNA life evolved’ to ‘therefore it was created by intelligence’, and another big leap from ‘it was created by intelligence’ to ‘it was created by supernatural intelligence’.
Darwinian Evolution is irrelevant to the whole discussion.
I think I understand the point you are trying to make with this. The questions I have in response are these:
When does Darwiniain Evolution become relevant for the discussion of life as we know it?
Where does your theory of supernatural creation stop and natural cause and effect take over?
If I were able to study, examine, and see the original supernatural creation of life, would I be able to explain it naturally? In other words, did the supernatural creator use already existing natural components and processes? Or did it create new components and processes? Or… ?
If I were able to replicate the supernatural phenomena of creation using natural components could would this be evidence for or against your theory of supernatural creation?
You talk about DNA, replication, bacterium and other complicated terms. I don’t know anything about these terms so I am not able to debate you on the particulars. The questions above are not a challenge. They are intended to clarify what you meant in terms I can understand.
“Since absolutely no one has ever come up with anything even approaching a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life from non-life, the obvious truth is that the first DNA based bacterium… was created by a supernatural intelligence.”
Uhh, no.
Even if we granted your shaky-as-an-aspen-leaf premise, that conclusion does not follow. “I’m ignorant of X, therefore god did X.”
If you want to show that a self-replicating molecule cannot possibly form from less complicated molecules in a gradual process, be my guest. Make sure to send me a copy of the paper.
“Since absolutely no one has ever come up with anything even approaching a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life from non-life, the obvious truth is that the first DNA based bacterium (the simplest life form we know of) with it’s staggeringly functionally complex digital code was created by a supernatural intelligence.”
Even if your antecedent were correct (and it definitely isn’t), this a textbook fallacy.
There’s a danger in posting comments like that … they make it clear that IDiots are arguing in bad faith.
In his rant against intelligent design theory , Yudkowsky seems to have overlooked a simple fact. Darwinian Evolution is irrelevant to the whole discussion. Darwinian Evolution is only operative and relevant from the moment you have a DNA based organism capable of self replication. (I know that there are highly speculative theories of earlier “simpler” self replicating molecules. There is no evidence at all that they ever actually existed, and no one has ever seen one outside of a laboratory where even the highly limited ability to self replicate is a product of the intelligent design of the chemists and microbiologists involved)
Since absolutely no one has ever come up with anything even approaching a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life from non-life, the obvious truth is that the first DNA based bacterium (the simplest life form we know of) with it’s staggeringly functionally complex digital code was created by a supernatural intelligence.
Again, all forms of life are possible (I.e. Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection are possible) if, and only if, the proper molecular machinery is in place. The irony is that not only is Darwinian Evolution not an explanation nor the cause of the fantastic and astounding functional complexity of life on this planet, Darwinian Evolution is a process that is the result of the astounding functional complexity of life on this planet.
This is stupid. I’m a theist and I think it’s stupid. I didn’t downvote you because −8 points is probably enough to get the point across, but let me explain what I dislike about your argument.
First, you’re seizing on one small fact that the author didn’t even bring up in order to dismiss an entire article. The article says nothing about how bacterial life evolved; as far as this article is concerned, we can go ahead and agree that God created bacterial life. Your blanket assertion that evolution is “irrelevant to the whole discussion” is rude, and pretty much has things backward—it’s not “Darwinian Evolution” that’s irrelevant to a discussion about how wasps and elephants evolved; it’s bacterial evolution that’s irrelevant. Wasps and elephants are exactly the sort of thing Darwin studied, whereas Darwin barely knew anything and barely said anything about bacteria.
Second, suppose you’re right. Suppose DNA and the molecular machinery that lets it reproduce were intelligently designed by a benevolent, Judeo-Christian God. The problem is that history and biology still show us a world that’s full of apparently unnecessary suffering, inefficiency, and cruelty. Yes, there is a staggering amount of complexity and beauty. So what? Why did God design DNA that He knew would in turn design wasps that eat their prey alive from the inside out? Isn’t that a really, really weird thing for a benevolent, all-powerful God to do? Doesn’t it surprise you that He apparently did that? Doesn’t that surprise lead you to wonder if maybe you got one of your assumptions wrong?
moedavid, Darwininan evolution is relevant from the moment you have anything that replicates itself—any of the hypothesized simpler replicators would have been subject to the same process of selection-by-survival that drives the evolution of modern life forms.
It’s a mistake to look at modern bacteria as if they were the first life on Earth. A modern bacterium is the product of billions of years of evolutionary refinement, and the short lifespans of many bacteria mean that they can cram more evolutionary iterations into that time than more long-lived organisms can. They may well be genetically further away from the First Cell than we are.
Also, there is a big leap from ‘we haven’t been able to determine the exact naturalistic mechanism by which DNA life evolved’ to ‘therefore it was created by intelligence’, and another big leap from ‘it was created by intelligence’ to ‘it was created by supernatural intelligence’.
I think I understand the point you are trying to make with this. The questions I have in response are these:
When does Darwiniain Evolution become relevant for the discussion of life as we know it?
Where does your theory of supernatural creation stop and natural cause and effect take over?
If I were able to study, examine, and see the original supernatural creation of life, would I be able to explain it naturally? In other words, did the supernatural creator use already existing natural components and processes? Or did it create new components and processes? Or… ?
If I were able to replicate the supernatural phenomena of creation using natural components could would this be evidence for or against your theory of supernatural creation?
You talk about DNA, replication, bacterium and other complicated terms. I don’t know anything about these terms so I am not able to debate you on the particulars. The questions above are not a challenge. They are intended to clarify what you meant in terms I can understand.
Uhh, no.
Even if we granted your shaky-as-an-aspen-leaf premise, that conclusion does not follow. “I’m ignorant of X, therefore god did X.”
If you want to show that a self-replicating molecule cannot possibly form from less complicated molecules in a gradual process, be my guest. Make sure to send me a copy of the paper.
“Since absolutely no one has ever come up with anything even approaching a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life from non-life, the obvious truth is that the first DNA based bacterium (the simplest life form we know of) with it’s staggeringly functionally complex digital code was created by a supernatural intelligence.”
Even if your antecedent were correct (and it definitely isn’t), this a textbook fallacy.
There’s a danger in posting comments like that … they make it clear that IDiots are arguing in bad faith.