Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Originally posted by DeepThought
I feel I see a pot calling a kettle black here. Science happens in the context of a technical language and a collection of paradigm theories. The paradigm theories are almost unconditionally believed and are things like quantum theory and relativity. The leader of the group that announced "faster than light" neutrinos at L.H.C., breaking Lorentz invar ...[text shortened]... cannot be restored to it's old status as a paradigm theory by the normal scientific process.

It all boils down to our worldview and what we think is possible and more logical, because there is no overwhelming evidence on your side. There is just as much evidence on my side. It is just a matter of interpretation.

From the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, I say the chicken and you say the egg. Through my scientific method, I observe that the hen and the rooster do their thing of reproduction and some fertilized eggs are layed by the hen. The hen incubates the eggs for about 3 weeks and at least one chick pecks itself out of the egg. Of course this requires the hen and the rooster to be specially created by an intelligent designer, who I call God, because of my religious belief.

I am not sure if you have a scientific method that produces the fertilized egg without some other type of miracle. I have never heard of such an explanation that is not also a miracle. But you guys make the claim that you do not believe in miracles.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
Yes, for MODERN earth i.e. natural conditions on Earth that exists TODAY and NOT the natural conditions on Earth that existed on early-Earth at around the time of abiogenesis. Thus this law has been established for modern Earth but NOT early-Earth.

I disagree. The Law of Biogenesis interpreted as RJ does, has not been established for any earth. There is in fact very little reason to believe that life does not spontaneously generate quite regularly somewhere on the earth. Of course these would be very simple life forms not the complex cellular life we are familiar with. We simply don't have the tools to look for such life forms and even if we did, we wouldn't have the resources to do so.
What RJ obviously doesn't know is that the Law of Biogenesis does not say that life can never come from non-life, but merely that most of the modern cellular life that we see today does not spontaneously appear every time you see it, but is descended from prior life. He simply doesn't understand the context of the Law of Biogenesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. The Law of Biogenesis interpreted as RJ does, has [b]not been established for any earth. There is in fact very little reason to believe that life does not spontaneously generate quite regularly somewhere on the earth. Of course these would be very simple life forms not the complex cellular life we are familiar with. We simply don't ...[text shortened]... escended from prior life. He simply doesn't understand the context of the Law of Biogenesis.[/b]

That is simply your opinion. I have a different opinion.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. The Law of Biogenesis interpreted as RJ does, has [b]not been established for any earth. There is in fact very little reason to believe that life does not spontaneously generate quite regularly somewhere on the earth. Of course these would be very simple life forms not the complex cellular life we are familiar with. We simply don't escended from prior life. He simply doesn't understand the context of the Law of Biogenesis.[/b]

There is in fact very little reason to believe that life does not spontaneously generate quite regularly somewhere on the earth.

I thought the luck of reducing atmosphere high in hydrogen and the right conditions for the spontaneous formation of microspheres is a reason for thinking it doesn't happen any more?

Of course these would be very simple life forms not the complex cellular life we are familiar with.

If you are right, that very simple life wouldn't be able to compete with the vastly better adapted and evolved modern life and would regularly go quickly extinct due to the fierce competition as soon after each time it forms.

What RJ obviously doesn't know is that the Law of Biogenesis does not say that life can never come from non-life, but merely that most of the modern cellular life that we see today does not spontaneously appear every time you see it, but is descended from prior life. He simply doesn't understand the context of the Law of Biogenesis.

Yes, that is certainly true for the modern understanding of Law of Biogenesis. Here we are in total agreement.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It all boils down to our worldview and what we think is possible and more logical, because there is no overwhelming evidence on your side. There is just as much evidence on my side. It is just a matter of interpretation.

From the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, I say the chicken and you say the egg. Through my scientific ...[text shortened]... o a miracle. But you guys make the claim that you do not believe in miracles.

The Instructor

The scientific community was convinced. The vast bulk of the scientific community is still convinced. Weaknesses in the current version of evolutionary theory will lead to a new scientific refinement of evolutionary theory, probably by the addition of a workable abiogenesis theory. They won't lead to creationism, at least not of the young earth variety.

Regarding the chicken and the egg, your designer could have created an egg, so the answer to the question is indeterminable from an ID point of view.

Originally posted by humy
I thought the luck of reducing atmosphere high in hydrogen and the right conditions for the spontaneous formation of microspheres is a reason for thinking it doesn't happen any more?

I do not know what is required for simple life to form, and I don't think anyone knows. I don't think we even know how the life we know formed.

If you are right, that very simple life wouldn't be able to compete with the vastly better adapted and evolved modern life and would regularly go quickly extinct due to the fierce competition as soon after each time it forms.
Life does not always compete every other inferior life form to extinction. The diversity of life - especially at the single celled level - is testimony to that.
The earth may currently be supporting many other life forms that we simply haven't discovered yet. If they don't use DNA, or have large effects on their environments, we simply wouldn't see them even if they were right in front of us. If however they are at the bottom of the ocean or 2 miles under ground, we haven't got a hope.

Yes, that is certainly true for the modern understanding of Law of Biogenesis. Here we are in total agreement.
I don't think there has ever been another understanding of it. The Law of Biogenesis was never meant to be a claim about the impossibility of abiogenesis. RJ is simply trying to misinterpret it for religious reasons. The law is merely a counter to the belief that life spontaneously generates at every opportunity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The scientific community was convinced. The vast bulk of the scientific community is still convinced. Weaknesses in the current version of evolutionary theory will lead to a new scientific refinement of evolutionary theory, probably by the addition of a workable abiogenesis theory. They won't lead to creationism, at least not of the young earth variet ...[text shortened]... have created an egg, so the answer to the question is indeterminable from an ID point of view.

God could have done a lot of things, but the Holy Bible informs us what he did do and it was not creating eggs.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
God could have done a lot of things, but the Holy Bible informs us what he did do and it was not creating eggs.

The Instructor

I'm not aware of any instances of the word "chicken" in the book of genesis. You have no basis for claiming chickens preceded eggs within the Creationist narrative you adhere to. The bible also does not mention llamas does that mean they don't exist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not know what is required for simple life to form, and I don't think anyone knows. I don't think we even know how the life we know formed.

[b]If you are right, that very simple life wouldn't be able to compete with the vastly better adapted and evolved modern life and would regularly go quickly extinct due to the fierce competition as soon after e s merely a counter to the belief that life spontaneously generates at every opportunity.

Life does not always compete every other inferior life form to extinction. The diversity of life - especially at the single celled level - is testimony to that.

But the simplest single celled life that exists today is nothing like as primitive as a photocell and has billions of years of evolution on its side that has made it extremely well adapted.
This would cause any viable protocell that forms today with a very serious problem in the form of a massive competitive disadvantage and nowhere near enough time before it has any chance to evolve to be competitive enough to have any chance of fending off the competition before that competition completely swamps it. Just for starters, protocells being organic would mean they would make an easy meal for modern bacteria and they wouldn’t have enough time to evolve countermeasures against such attacks before it is too late. It would be like expecting some cavemen, equipped with only a few sticks for weapons, to survive a battle against a murderous ruthless modern army armed to the teeth with modern tanks, machine guns, nukes and aided by i.r. nighttime vision cameras and GPS navigation and then learn to make effective anti-tank missiles before the next attack the next day and then hold their own -not a chance.

Originally posted by humy
But the simplest single celled life that exists today is nothing like as primitive as a photocell and has billions of years of evolution on its side that has made it extremely well adapted.

You mean the simplest single celled life that we know of. As I argue above, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of single celled life let alone look at other possible life forms.

This would cause any viable protocell that forms today with a very serious problem in the form of a massive competitive disadvantage and nowhere near enough time before it has any chance to evolve to be competitive enough to have any chance of fending off the competition before that competition completely swamps it.
Once again I disagree. Life is not always locked into competition. Life very frequently form symbiotic arrangements.

Just for starters, protocells being organic would mean they would make an easy meal for modern bacteria and they wouldn’t have enough time to evolve countermeasures against such attacks before it is too late.
I don't see why not. Why could simpler life not evolve quickly? Virus' have no problem with fast evolution. In fact, DNA is probably slower at evolving than an RNA based life form would be.

It would be like expecting some cavemen, equipped with only a few sticks for weapons, to survive a battle against a murderous ruthless modern army armed to the teeth with modern tanks, machine guns, nukes and aided by i.r. nighttime vision cameras and GPS navigation and then learn to make effective anti-tank missiles before the next attack the next day and then hold their own -not a chance.
No, it would be like insects still being far more prolific than humans. There doesn't always have to be direct competition between life forms.

I am also not convinced that we have good reason to believe DNA based cellular life is the best design out there. Why are you so sure it would out-compete any new commer? What do you know about DNA based cellular life that is so great, and what do you know about other types of life that is so poor?
I say you have a single example and no scale to measure it against.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not aware of any instances of the word "chicken" in the book of genesis. You have no basis for claiming chickens preceded eggs within the Creationist narrative you adhere to. The bible also does not mention llamas does that mean they don't exist?

The chicken falls under the bird kind, just like an ostrich.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean the simplest single celled life that we know of. As I argue above, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of single celled life let alone look at other possible life forms.

[b]This would cause any viable protocell that forms today with a very serious problem in the form of a massive competitive disadvantage and nowhere near enough time b ...[text shortened]... f life that is so poor?
I say you have a single example and no scale to measure it against.

You are bringing up science fiction instead of real science.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The chicken falls under the bird kind, just like an ostrich.

The Instructor

The narrative in Genesis (1:20-21) has God saying "Let birds fly across the expanse of the sky" and then it attributes the creation of all winged birds to him. It does not say that all birds were flying at the moment of their creation - or even that any were. Given the longevity of the antediluvians, and the general problem of time within the book of Genesis, the text does not rule out the possibility that what was created was an egg which then hatched and grew to maturity in less than a day. The bible only specifically states that Adam was created individually, it doesn't specify that there was a single first individual of any other species - so the text could refer to an entire working population created simultaneously, in which case the chicken and egg race is a dead heat.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The chicken falls under the bird kind, just like an ostrich.

The Instructor

So you are OK with everything from the humming bird to the ostrich evolving from a common ancestor in only 6000 years?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are OK with everything from the humming bird to the ostrich evolving from a common ancestor in only 6000 years?

No, the bible specifies that God created them according to each kind - so all species of birds were created on the fourth day in the biblical narrative. My point was that the bible does not specify how many of each species were created at a time, or in what form. It is only for Adam and Eve that this is specified. Therefore RJ has no biblical authority to claim that the chicken came before the egg.

Although the chicken is the domesticated form of the Red Junglefowl - so the first chickens were the first to be born in captivity - ones born wild are Junglefowl - and therefore what came first was the egg - independently of whether evolution or the creationist narrative is true.

Further, at some point the chicken was hybridized with the Grey Junglefowl - so to be a chicken it has to have come after the hybridization, and won't have been around on the fourth day.