We know from both experiment and theory that reproduction with inheritance, variation, and competition does produce increasing complexity; therefore it is perfectly reasonable to propose that the complexity of life as we know it has arisen from this simple, observable process iterated over very long periods of time. We have no reason outside folklore to believe in omnipotent magical creators.

The problem with science is that it is not friendly to the general public. And it shouldn’t be: areas of expertise bring with them their own expert jargon. But that jargon makes the general public believe creationists sooner, because they speak a language they can recognize.

This is the last thing I will say here about Mr. Wagner. Reading his material, it seems to me his whole argument stands and falls on a single analogy, and he has rephrased this analogy in so many different ways as to expand a 3 line argument into pages and pages of text, but it is all still the same idea. But his analogy can just as easily be turned around to say the exact opposite. To whit:

1. No intelligent designer has ever been observed to design and build a practical working machine on a molecular scale. No molecular motors. Not even a practically useful inclined plane. Nanotech is still science fiction.
2. No machine, on any scale, has ever been observed to be capable of self-replication. Von Neumann probes are also still science fiction.
3. No intelligent designer has ever been observed to design and build a lifeform.
4. No intelligent designer has ever been observed to even be able to modify a pre-existing lifeform without using tools that were already pre-existing in some other lifeform.
5. There is at least 3000 years of recorded history of known intelligent designers at work, and an archeological record dating back over 2 million years. (Far longer than the 20 year Lenski experiment, for comparison)
6. There is a 3.8 billion year fossil record, and astronomial observations dating back to almost 13 billion years, and nowhere is there any evidence of any other intelligent designers more capable than the ones considerd in #5.

By the above, I can easily conclude with the same logic that the mechanism of intelligence is clearly utterly insufficient, incapable, obviously too feeble, to design and build the complex, organized, self-replicating entity otherwise known as life. The only alternate, therefore, is random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and the other mechanisms of the theory of evolution.

Do you not see how empty the First Cause Argument is? “Because of this, you eventually must come to a primary cause, which religions call God.” Might as well call it “mashed potatoes”. Either way it’s vacuous. Even if there was a First Cause (and I dispute that this is necessarily so), since we have no mechanism at this point in science’s fledgling existence for how the universe came into being, we can make no inference on the cause itself. Thus, the only appropriate answer to the question of the universe’s existence is “I don’t know how it came into being.” What you and everyone else has done since this argument came about (and really, it only sounds good – it is otherwise completely vacuous) is try to stuff god in the gaps of our knowledge. This is not positive evidence for a designer, or a creator, or whatever and the argument reduces to “I can’t figure out what the First Cause is, so it must be god.” Not exactly a worthy argument.

@ Charlie Wagner: If you think my comments have wronged you, then I invite you to rebuke me personally at “EastwoodDC AT netscape.net”. Consider this my way of taking responsibility for my behavior without annoying everyone else in the process.

I don’t have a clue about who “designed the designer”.

Nor is it necessary.

One of the oldest problems facing humankind is the problem of “First
Cause”. Why is there anything, instead of nothing? When and how did it
all start? Is it “turtles all the way down”? Evolution has the same
problem of infinite regress. All evolved forms were modified from
pre-existing forms. But is it just an infinite regression of
pre-existing forms? When and how did it all start?

The question of First Cause has been addressed by Philosophers and
Scientists since the beginning of time. No solution has been
forthcoming, although I will offer one for your contemplation. The First
Cause problem stems from the knowledge that everything in the world has
a cause. Because of this, you eventually must come to a primary cause,
which religions call God. But this begs the question: “who made god?”.
If everything must have a cause, then God too must have a cause.
Religion says: “not so, God has always existed.” and leave it at that.
But I contend that if there is anything in the universe without a cause,
it might as well be the universe itself, rather than God. Since I don’t
believe in God, there’s only one option as far as I can see: the
universe and the life in it have always existed. There’s simply no
reason for thinking that the universe had a beginning. Cosmologists seem
to have an even different view. They claim that the universe came into
existence without a cause. It’s really only poverty of our limited human
imagination that everything must have a beginning. For evolutionists,
the question “where did life come from” may be no different from the
question “where did matter come from?”

You made the statement: “My claim is that since no complex, highly organized system has ever bootstrapped itself into existence from nothing, that it is highly likely that living organisms, which fall into the same category, likewise required an intelligent author.”

OK, as Todd has asked and you haven’t responded, since the “intelligent designer” must therefore be a complex, highly organized system, then who designed the designer? Your statement doesn’t make any sense unless you can propose the designer of the designer, right? And I’m sure you can see where this is going, can’t you? I’m not sure why people who use this argument don’t understand the necessity of answering their own proposed mechanism as needing a designer. Or do you just have to believe (LOL!)? Please get back to us when you can answer that little annoying question, OK? Otherwise, your argument is back to “Since I don’t understand, I’ll propose some supernatural being”. Easy to say, but practically means nothing, if you think about it. Don’t you understand this, or will you just choose to ignore it?

That’s a little nearsighted. Language only has meaning if it’s intersubjectively used. It’s worthless if a word just means willy-nilly whatever someone, like Luskin, says it means. If you want an “authoritative” and up-to-date set of definitions for eponymous (decidedly not a piece of scientific jargon) then check the Oxford English Dictionary:
–
1. That gives (his) name to anything; said esp. of the mythical personages from whose names the names of places or peoples are reputed to be derived.
2. Giving his name to the year, as did the chief archon at Athens.
–
Note that it’s a derived name and that should be obvious to anyone willing to use a dictionary. Shubin has used an “evolved” version of the word because he hasn’t cited a tribe or place but rather a class of objects – arm bones. He’s exapted the term so to speak. But Luskin is such a nincompoop that he couldn’t wrap his pinhead around it.

I must say, though, that since language evolves, the proper meaning of ‘eponymous’ is whatever the majority of people who write and read (and say and hear) that term take it to mean.

I notice that Casey ‘Attack Mouse of the Discovery Institute’ Luskin’s article is still up in its original form, flaunting his foolishness. It is just like creationists to build an edifice on their own misunderstanding and then not to retreat from it.

The link you provided was not what I was asking for.

I’m sorry, but you can’t claim as evidence raw data interpreted by others as supporting the very opposite view unless you, or someone else, publish your own reinterpretation of that data and your peers come to accept your interpretation as more valid than the original. So no dice.

Explain to me how your theory provides for the emergence of the complex and organized phenomenon known as “intelligence” without going around in circles, and I may be more interested.

Nevertheless, thanks for the reply.

And it’s still fun….

Wouldn’t the intelligent designer to whom you allude be exactly such a complex, highly organized machine that emerged without intelligent input?

Bob

With all due respect, you do not have better mechanism. Nor can you measure it or see it working. This is nothing more than illusion and self-deception.

There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible and credible link between random mutation, natural selection or genetic drift with the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes or systems found in living organisms.

(more)

Science is not in the business of proving things. It can only say what is most likely. In this regard, science uses the tool of inductive logic. We cannot prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but we conclude that it is highly likely, based on past experience.

The most common type of inductive argument is the analogy and this is an argument by analogy. It is only as strong as its ability to persuade. My claim is that since no complex, highly organized system has ever bootstrapped itself into existence from nothing, that it is highly likely that living organisms, which fall into the same category, likewise required an intelligent author.

In addition, no other known mechanism has been shown to be capable of this feat, which only strengthens the analogy. If you could show that a complex, highly organized machine has emerged without intelligent input, or if you can demonstrate a believable alternate mechanism or first principle by which this might have occurred, then my argument would be defeated.

No, I do have a better mechanism. As did Darwin & Wallace, and the many thousands of biologists who have studied the issue since. We get it, we’ve measured it, we can see it working. Your personal failure to accept this does not change the fact that it is understood by others.

That’s it in a nutshell.

I don’t have a clue what the mechanism of evolution is or the origin of the perceived design.

But then, neither do you.

My proposal, as is Darwin’s, is one long argument. But I happen to think that intelligent input is a stronger argument than random mutations, natural selection or any other accidental process.

I goofed. Luskin studied geology, not at MSU, but rather, at the University of California, San Diego, where he also earned a M. S. degree doing research on paleomagnetism. However, he should have had ample exposure to both paleobiology and other relevant aspects of biology there, but for some inexplicable reason, did not ensure for himself a decent education in both.

Who knows? Maybe he thinks plate tectonics is a fairy tale sent to humanity sent from Luskin’s real “master”, Lucifer?

Regards,

John