Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Further Reflections on Kitzmiller

What is really bad about the Kitzmiller opinion is that Judge Jones said so much. What is really great about the opinion is that Judge Jones said so much.

The opinion is 139 pages that do not just decide the case at hand, but try to deal a death blow to intelligent design generally. 139 pages leaves a lot of room for judicial mistakes, logical mistakes, historical mistakes and other kinds of mistakes. And Judge Jones used his 139 pages to make a lot of mistakes.

But that is what bloggers are for, right?

1 Comments:

At December 21, 2005 5:54 PM, Blogger Red Reader said...

I've subscribed to your blog today.
Thanks!

Have you seen this report?
"Robert Holt, head of sequencing for the Genome Science Centre at the University of British Columbia, is leading efforts at his Vancouver lab to play a key role in the production of the first synthetic life form -- a microbe made from scratch."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

I left a comment there:
....
Comment 12/21/05 at globeandmail.com

From story: "So the profound problem is what do you do with this DNA once you get it? How do you turn it into an actual organism? You need the genome to encode and make the organism. But the way biology works, you need the organism to make the genome."

This is the classic chicken & egg conundrum.

I would like to make a prediction. If they stick to the effort of trying to create viable life from chemicals alone, they will fail. I am not an Intelligent Design theorist, but I speculate this IS a prediction that is consistent with Intelligent Design theory.

ID says There are some structures in biological systems (and in physics, but that is not an issue here) that appear to have an Intelligent Cause. In ID theory, such systems are said to be "irreducibly complex". It is the chicken & egg conundrum at the level of micro-biology.

"Irreducible Complexity" implies there is no way to organize raw chemicals so that "life starts".

These scientists may develop a new microbe (if so, more power to them and perhaps useful technologies will result), but they will not do so "from scratch" with raw chemicals. To form a new microbe, they will need at least one already-living microbe to start with.

Their failure (using raw chemicals alone) will be consistent with ID theory and inconsistent with evololution theory (which says "life can spring from non-life").
....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home