Bill Cole's Case For Design

Yes, TSZ is down at present. And there’s nothing that I can do to fix it. It will be up to the site owner.

Yes… but we have no evidence that natural selection can come through in all cases… why club all mutations the same way… perhaps some mutations are biased towards an end and others are not.
Or perhaps all are… and we don’t know enough to realise it.
Edit: To me it seems this language is a result of philosophical necessity more than anything. Random means what it does for philosophical reasons. And when I accept this language in discussions, I am speaking within the framework of a materialist philosophy. I think @jongarvey is right. We need to think what these words can mean without the philosophical biases brought by science.

@Ashwin_s

The BioLogos position on Adam is usually described as “Adam is a figurative expression of Biblical truth”.

This does not seem to match your description … it is the normal view of science.

@Ashwin_s

To answer your first question: Yes, all are.

The bias by Science is pretty much unavoidable.

Perhaps. But I would expect biologists to notice that. And they say that there is no evidence of such bias.

1 Like

@Ashwin_s,

The ONE thing that @swamidass makes clear, over and over, is that science is intentionally silent on why. It is not just a bias… it is inherent to the process.

2 Likes

I wouldn’t … frankly, biologists should be surprised mutations produce anything that works as opposed to such a complex biosphere… no bias to a result… and so many meaningful impressive mechanisms. Doesn’t add up.

Well some guys like Shapiro seem to notice it… so it wouldn’t be fair to be too general in this criticism.

@Ashwin_s most the key data is public as are the work of biologists. Rather than attacking the character of the whole field, why not go look at understand the data for yourself?

2 Likes

How is saying that biologists should be surprised that undirected mutations lead to complex well functioning systems an attack on the character of the field ?
Is there a reason biologists should not be surprised?

There was a meeting of many evolutionary biologists at the Royal society in 2016 that discussed the exact concern you are raising so it is being discussed.

1 Like

But of course it adds up.

If you don’t know what will work, then try lots of different things, and see which works. It seems to be an intelligent way of proceeding.

1 Like

@Ashwin_s

As amazing as the night sky is… after a while a scientist becomes numb to the psychological impact. It’s human nature.

Sure… provided there is a You… and an intelligence involved…
Trial and error needs someone to try and then choose.

1 Like

Biological populations are doing that. You might not count a population as a “someone” but it still works just as well.

1 Like

In a limited sense it does. Biological populations optimise existing information according to the fitness environment.
We don’t know definitively about any system that can achieve open ended evolution. From a single cell to all the diversity on earth.
There is speculation. But no detailed models beyond the species level.There might never be.
So why so confident when talking about areas where the concept itself is untestable?

@Ashwin_s

Because what other model would be worth considering?

Having only one untestable model should not be a source of confidence.

@Ashwin_s

Unless there is ZERO other models suggested by the data.

It is the proximity of other models that induce anxiety… not 100% lack of a competing model.

Precisely. From all appearances, functional information can be whatever someone wants at any time. I could claim that any change to a software program lowers FI. That’s the problem. When something can’t be quantified and can take on any definition the user sees fit it simply isn’t scientific.

We can’t say that there is an increase in FI because there is no way to measure it in the form it is currently being used.

The challenge from previous posts still stand. Go to the following random DNA sequence generator and create a 5k base pair sequence:

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mmaduro/random.htm

Measure the functional information in that random sequence. Next, randomly change 10 of the bases in that sequence. Remeasure the functional information in that sequence. Compare your measure of functional information from before and after and see if there is an increase, decrease, or lack of change in functional information.

My main point is that there is a possible evolutionary pathway from a light sensitive spot to the vertebrate eye (and other eyes as well). Each step is along the way offers known advantages so it is possible for natural selection to build the vertebrate eye step by step.

It is also interesting that Darwin had the same conversation with himself in Origin of Species:

I tend to find that most biologists, regardless of religious worldview, are in awe of how nature works, and this awe is what drew them to the field in the first place.

3 Likes