The Intelligence of Mother Nature

Darwinists frequently engage in the personification of nature (i.e., they utilize language suggesting sentience).  In a recent press release, they do it again.(1)  There are a number of conceptual problems with the following statement:

He and his co-author, postdoctoral researcher Minglei Wang, were interested in tracing how proteins make use of their domains, or groups of domains, to accomplish various tasks. These domains or domain clusters can be thought of as “modules” that fit together in various ways to achieve different ends.

The attribution of accomplishing various tasks to molecules is problematic.  The molecules of course have no sentience, planning abilities, and so forth.  They are molecules and do not think, feel, or reason.  Yet, purpose and achievement are attributed to molecules.  This makes sense if you are working from an ID perspective, but the language is not appropriate to a non-design perspective.

They continue in a similar vein:

“As time progressed, these domains started to combine with others and they became very specialized,” Caetano-Anollés said. This eventually led to the big bang of protein architectures.

“Exactly at the time of the big bang,” many of the combined domains began to split apart, creating numerous single-domain modules again, he said. But these new modules were much more efficient and specialized than their ancient predecessors had been.

“This makes a lot of sense,” Caetano-Anollés said. “As you become more complex, you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”

As if the big bang materialist cosmology story were not enough, we now invoke it in biology.  It seemed to work fairly well for them in cosmology, why not try it in biology too?  But that’s beside the point.  So, we continue with the attribution of sentience to matter.    “…you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”  That’s what I would be thinking if I were a bacteria for certain, but this is a nonsensical way of describing material processes.

I think this goes to a deeper issue.  That is that biology does not make sense outside of the concept of design.  The language to understand and explore the functions of proteins does not exist in blind materialist terms.  The reason is that these things are designed, and must be understood from that conceptual framework.

Access Research Network also has a good post on the language problem faced by Darwinian evolutionists.(2)

(1). Study of protein structures reveals key events in evolutionary history
(2). Darwinists on Design: Jumping to Confusions

Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. These dummies would rather pretend matter incarnates mind, rather than accepting the bloody obvious fact that mind incarnates matter.

    The soul incarnates a body. The zygote grows according the the nature of the soul. Irreducible complexity only applies to living organisms, not to lifeless parts. But some people like to argue about meat and the hierarchies thereof.

  2. The soul incarnates a body. The zygote grows according the the nature of the soul. Irreducible complexity only applies to living organisms, not to lifeless parts. But some people like to argue about meat and the hierarchies thereof.

    So do you think that all life requires the operation of a soul of some sort?

  3. “we now invoke it in biology”

    Absolutely. In both cases the observational evidence is very clear. Therefore the use of the phrase “big bang” is quite appropriate.

    “but this is a nonsensical way of describing material processes.”

    Of course it is.

    But this is a press release, not a scientific paper.

    So your attempt to make a mountain out of this silly molehill is completely misguided.

    “The language to understand and explore the functions of proteins does not exist in blind materialist terms.”

    Of course your assertion is nonsense. Did you really read the actual scientific paper? In the journal “Structure”? Hmm. It might seem that it has not yet been published. The press release is not clear and there is no specific reference.

    From the press release:

    “The protein modules of the three superkingdoms also began to diverge more dramatically from one another, with the eukarya (the group that includes plants and animals) hosting the greatest diversity of modules.

    “This explosion of diversity allowed the eukarya to do things with their proteins that other organisms could not do,” Caetano-Anollés said.””

    So evolution over many millions of years is the proper explanation for the diversity of life.

    “Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines”

    If you wish to be misled by nonsense written by these clowns, I cannot stop you – I can only point out that this source really is a deliberate distortion of reality.

  4. Absolutely. In both cases the observational evidence is very clear. Therefore the use of the phrase “big bang” is quite appropriate.

    We were just discussing your adherence to a mechanical philosophy of some type here, where you tried to pass your philosophy as a veritable definition for science itself. So do you know of a mechanism that brings about singularities? If we can indeed have scientific knowledge with respect to singularities or “big bangs” then why did you argue that we cannot have scientific knowledge of things which fall outside of a mechanical time line of cause and effect? In fact, at the time you even went so far as to claim that those who do not adhere to your mechanistic type of philosophy are not interested in “reality” and so on. So it seems to me that you need to show a mechanism that brings about singularities so that we can be sure that the knowledge you claim to have is “scientific,” i.e. rooted in a knowledge of mechanism.

  5. So evolution over many millions of years is the proper explanation for the diversity of life.

    I’m still back on the proper explanation for your ideas about life. You’ve argued that all proper scientific explanations are mechanical in nature. So is there a mechanism which produces your ideas about life?

    I can only point out that this source really is a deliberate distortion of reality.

    Very well, what distortions of reality are they the source of?

  6. If you wish to be misled by nonsense written by these clowns, I cannot stop you – I can only point out that this source really is a deliberate distortion of reality.

    I only found out about the article from Creation-Evolution headlines. I wrote my post from the press release, which quotes directly the authors of the study. So, I am assuming you think that these Darwinists are deliberately distorting reality. The notion of deliberate is problematic from a materialistic perspective. But if the Darwinists who said those things had the perception that they were deliberately distorting reality based on some material process, I suppose that would be interesting as well. However, the significance would be uncertain.

  7. “So, I am assuming you think that these Darwinists are deliberately distorting reality.”

    I posted that sentence under “Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines”, so of course I was referring to the http://creationsafaris.com/crev200903.htm#20090313a clowns.

    Their first sentence is:

    “The precise three-dimensional structure of a typical protein molecule is so complex, its origin would seem hopeless by chance.”

    Typical appeal to “common sense” – argument from ignorance.

    Their sentences get much worse after that.

    “So do you know of a mechanism that brings about singularities?”

    You are confused. Of course the creation of the universe as a “big bang” was a singularity. Of course I do not know of any such mechanism. Ask the cosmologists, not me.

    This has nothing to do with the biological “big bang” of new proteins. That was not a singularity – it was evolution in action over millions of years. The metaphor “big bang” might still be appropriate if crazies like you would not attempt to willfully distort what was being claimed.

  8. This has nothing to do with the biological “big bang” of new proteins.

    It’s interesting how your language is changing and evolving. You began with: Absolutely. In both cases the observational evidence is very clear. Therefore the use of the phrase “big bang” is quite appropriate.

    Note that this was a comment on:Exactly at the time of the big bang,” many of the combined domains began to split apart, creating numerous single-domain modules again, he said. (Emphasis added)

    Exactly, absolutely and so on is not the language of those uncertain of their knowledge, yet now it seems that such language is really only a blurred metaphoric understanding of some sort which “might still be appropriate” if no one disagreed with it.

    That was not a singularity – it was evolution in action over millions of years.

    Are you sure that evolution is the appropriate word? By evolution do you mean the influence of random mutation and natural selection in action or do you mean any change? If you mean any change then all you’ve really said is that it was change in action over millions of years, which is rather redundant given that change is always in action. And no one here is denying that.

    The metaphor “big bang” might still be appropriate if crazies like you would not attempt to willfully distort what was being claimed.

    I’m curious if you are referring to insanity in a clinical way or if that’s just another metaphor which might not be appropriate if people who disagree are left untreated. As Karl Kraus noted of the pseudo-science of his day, pseudo-scientific views of the reality of intelligent agency are often protected by scientific consensus:

    The new science of mad-doctoring has dared to invade the mystery of genius. ….I will stand watch and personally consign these manufacturers of madness-whose cry, ‘Anything to treat?’ is now heard all over the land-into oblivion. Their teaching enlarges irresponsibility and thus diminishes the personality.
    (Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus’s Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry by Thomas Szasz)

    Freud and Darwin are similar, they both created forms of pseudo-science.

  9. “By evolution do you mean the influence of random mutation and natural selection in action”

    Of course, you idiot.

    “Freud and Darwin are similar, they both created forms of pseudo-science.”

    Hilarious ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: