thecountryshrink
DB WilliamsI ran across a very interesting story that dates back to 2003. It was on a site that has a focus of advancing nanotechnology. There is a very interesting interview with a Japanese researcher studying the bacterial flagellum. The researcher appears to utilizing the aspect of applied science where I think ID theory fits very well. I’ll quote some interesting poritions.
The design concepts of protein molecules to realize various functional mechanisms by their three-dimensional architecture are quite different from those we design by our engineering technique with bulk materials. Folding of single polymer chain into some three-dimensional structures gives a huge amount of freedom and flexibility in both function and structure. Individual atoms are used as functional parts, and this is the essential feature that makes biological macromolecules distinct from artificial machines at present. The design concepts have to be well understood and learned for future nanotechnology applications. So far, for the flagellar motor, the deeper our insights get into the mechanism, the deeper the mystery becomes. Now the mystery of conformational switching of the filament has been solved, and in terms of the number of protein molecules, the filament makes up 99% of the entire flagellum, it does not mean 99% of the mystery is solved. It is the motor mechanism that is even more difficult to understand. (1)
The more that is learned about such things, the deeper the mystery becomes. The level of complexity and design increases with increasing knowledge on the subject. In my line of work, I have to evaluate complex and simple trends that my patients exhibit. I evaluate one complex trend of science as forever marching toward the realization of increased complexity of biological processes and systems. Ocam’s razor seems to perpetually slice the wrong way in biology. Now back to the flagellum.
It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at energy consumption of only around 10-16 W and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%. Prof. Namba’s research group is going to reveal the mechanism of this highly efficient flagellar motor that is far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors.
I also recommend taking a look at the pictures and diagrams with the story. Now this simple little bacteria dwarfs anything we can design. We can come nowhere near 100% energy efficience with a motor, let alone build one out of individual atoms and molecules. I know I didn’t expand my notion of Ocam’s razor slicing the wrong way in biology, but that is worthy of being expanded in another post.
References:
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Technology, evolution, nanotechnology, science | Tagged: applied science, evolution, Intelligent Design, nanotechnology, naturalism, science
No matter how you think about it, the existence of a supernatural (or even a very advanced but natural) designer is still far less probable than the existence of an as yet unknown evolutionary path to the flagellum’s design.
Joshua, that’s a personal opinion. If that’s your opinion, that’s fine. I happen to see the reverse as true.
We know that there is a heirarchy of intelligence in the universe. We know intelligent life exists in the universe. In our daily lives, we know that things of a certain level of specific or functional complexity are designed by intelligence. It naturally follows to me that the MOST complex things that we know of in the universe are intelligently designed. Although obviously there are some who disagree…
The flagellar motor doesn’t pose a problem for evolution.
For starters see:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html
And to respond directly to thecountryshrink’s argument: if we know that the most complicated things are designed, then why do you make an exception for a designer? Certainly a designer must be complex as well. Who designed the designer?
Making an exception without justification is a logical fallacy called “special pleading.”
All there is in those articles is a bunch of hand waving. Behe has a partial response to some of these arguments here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKQ68DYANPYZUT
Both a purely naturalistic perspective AND an intelligent design perspective ultimately have a logical breaking point at the initial origin. Logic can only take you so far on that issue and no futher.
What you are attempting to assert, is that it’s not okay to say, “We don’t know,” to the question of “Who designed the designer.” That would be like me asking, What was before the big bang? What naturalistic processes resulted in the big bang? How do you have an initial effect without a cause? … And so forth.
Patrick Draper,
You said, “Making an exception without justification is a logical fallacy called “special pleading.” Were you refering to evolutionists and astro-physicists, as well?
As thecountryshrink pointed out, isn’t the “big bang,” or, as it’s called now, supposedly, “dark energy,” an example of “making an exception without justification” and therefore, a “logical fallacy?” There is no evidence for the origin, or where it first began, of “dark energy,” and yet I have had scientists tell me that it is the source of creation. In science, does anything ever come out of nothing? Energy comes from a source, does it not? If it does, then what is that source? If scientists say we haven’t discovered the source yet, then they shouldn’t treat dark energy as anything more than an unsubstantiated theory. I have no problem with the theory of dark energy, just like I have no problem with the complexity of design pointing to an ultimate designer.
Patrick Draper,
You said, “Making an exception without justification is a logical fallacy called “special pleading.” Were you refering to evolutionists and astro-physicists, as well?
As thecountryshrink pointed out, isn’t the “big bang,” or, as it’s called now, supposedly, “dark energy,” an example of “making an exception without justification” and therefore, a “logical fallacy?” There is no evidence for the origin, or where it first began, of “dark energy,” and yet I have had scientists tell me that it is the source of creation. In science, does anything ever come out of nothing? Energy comes from a source, does it not? If it does, then what is that source? If scientists say we haven’t discovered the source yet, then they shouldn’t treat dark energy as anything more than an unsubstantiated theory. I have no problem with the theory of dark energy, just like I have no problem with the complexity of design pointing to an ultimate designer.
Draper,
No one designed the Designer. You’ve made an illogical jump from the physical; things bound by space/time/matter, to the non-physical.
Every effect must have a cause, every creation must have a creator; God is neither an effect nor a creation, therefore does not need a cause or a creator.
Kliska
TheChristianScribbler.com
We know that something can’t come from nothing, but it may still be true that everything (the universe) came from nothing. In much the same way that we know cells cannot think but brains can or that atoms are invisible, but desks are not.
It is a logical fallacy to say that what is true of the parts (i.e. the something) must also be true of the whole (i.e. the everything).
Joshua, your whole argument is illogical. The entire universe is made up of components, matter, energy, etc.. So, your argument is the whole can come from nothing but not the parts?? Completely and utterly illogical.
Don’t be stupid. The whole can have properties that the components do not. The individual components of an aircraft cannot fly, but the whole aircraft can. The individual components of a recipe may taste good by themselves, but together they taste horrible. And the individual components of a universe may require a cause, but the universe may not (I’m not saying the universe doesn’t have a cause, but rather that it isn’t necessarily implied by the requirement for each component to have a cause).
This fallacy is called ‘the fallacy of composition’. It’s use in the cosmological argument is discussed here: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallacyofcomposition.html
Thanks for telling me to not be stupid. I’ll try to work on that.
In your link is the following paragraph:
Note that what is said, “what is less clear is whether it really is fallacious.” What this is really talking about is more emergent functional properties (such as consciousness). The ‘universe’ is not an emergent property as nearly as I can tell. It’s nothing more than a label that we give to something seen as a whole. So, I think this ‘logical fallacy’ has been inappropriately applied in this case.
Joshua, you said,
“We know that something can’t come from nothing, but it may still be true that everything (the universe) came from nothing. In much the same way that we know cells cannot think but brains can or that atoms are invisible, but desks are not.”
If this isn’t a textbook example of denial, then I’ve never heard one. “Science knows that something can’t come from nothing,” and then you say, “but it may still be true that everything (the universe) came from nothing.” That’s doubletalk at best! This everything possibly came from nothing scenario, doesn’t sound much different, to me, than everything came into existence by a creator. I know, I’m stupid, also, but at least I’m not in denial: I can see God in creation, and its complexity, but I can’t empirically substantiate my belief. But you seem more than willing to argue your BELIEFS from an unsubstantiated position! The fact is, you have no evidence for where the “tiny marble,” that supposedly started everything, came from, and you won’t admit that-now-your making up a new scenario just to validate that belief. It sounds pretty fundy to me!
The cosmological naturalistic theory also uses words to describe what took place before the big bang that would be non-applicable. For example, I’ve committed a linguistic error by saying ‘what took place.’ Time would not have existed, which is a property of the universe. So the notions of ‘fluctuations” “coming in and out of existence,” and so forth are nonsensical. Those are time bound phenomena, and it’s all a bunch of fantasy. There are questions that science will never be able to answer despite the ability of scientists to develop animations, charts, and so forth that represent their sci-fi views of how things occurred.
Joshua, you said,
“We know that something can’t come from nothing, but it may still be true that everything (the universe) came from nothing. In much the same way that we know cells cannot think but brains can or that atoms are invisible, but desks are not.”
If this isn’t a textbook example of denial, then I’ve never heard one. “Science knows that something can’t come from nothing,” and then you say, “but it may still be true that everything (the universe) came from nothing.” That’s doubletalk at best! This everything possibly came from nothing scenario, doesn’t sound much different, to me, than everything came into existence by a creator. I know, I’m stupid, also, but at least I’m not in denial: I can see God in creation, and its complexity, but I can’t empirically substantiate my belief. But you seem more than willing to argue your BELIEFS from an unsubstantiated position! The fact is, you have no evidence for where the “tiny marble,” that supposedly started everything, came from, and you won’t admit that-now-your making up a new scenario just to validate that belief. It sounds pretty fundy to me!
Joshua, as other comments have hinted at; you are chasing your tail; contradicting yourself. Also, you cannot use an analogy without making sure it is accurate. Comparing an airplane, and it’s components with the formation of space-time is not an accurate analogy, neither are cells/brains, atoms, desks as these are all bound and contained by the universe.
By claiming that something can come from nothing, you are outside the bounds of observational naturalistic science and taking an illogical position… Christians have the more solid and consistent position, logically and scientifically speaking; something did not come from nothing. There logically has to be something that is self-existent; not bound by space-time. Evidence points to God.