Recognising design

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Given an organism without knowing if it was modified there would be the bias that it is natural.

Not sure I'd agree, but I will say such a bias would certainly change if one believes there are significant reasons against believing the organism arose naturally. Furthermore, saying the bias should be that it arose naturally begs the question of whether infact such an organism did or even could arise naturally. Of course, if one is biassed to believing an organism can arise naturally, then like you, they will likely think it quite acceptible to believe by default that it arose naturally.

First I would like to say that I enjoy conversing with you, although you are not here often.
The bias is due to the disproof of spontaneous generation years ago. Also the observation that only life begets life.

I provided my analogy of a modified organism to see whether certain methodologies could be employed to detect such modification. Without something to compare, you believe such an intelligent modification can't be detected.

Evidence for evolution would be equally undetectable in this case.

Thus, if the scientists handed the modified form did not have the original organism template to compare with, then you believe they should to be biassed towards it arising naturally. I don't see where this bias comes from, unless one assumes the answer from the beginning that the organism in question arose naturally.

With out any prior examination or comparative analysis any bias would be unwarrented.

I updated my question to be more clear. I was meaning, do you think it matters either way what one believes on origins (whether it was designed, or natural) when conducting science to discover how an organism works?

No it doesn't matter, however the observations thus far have lead to this conclusion of common descent and provides much of the driving force in creating new hypotheses', which in turn spurs the formulation for new avenues of experimentation. Bear in mind there are many new discoveries which are not a result of hypothesis' formulated on the theory of evolution, however any new discoveries will weigh against the theory.

I also do a good amount of programming and the analogy doesn't work. Organisms do not use inheritance in the way you see it.

I'm not talking about inheritance, but true duplication. The kind of duplication which leads many evolutionary proponents to say things like, "Hey... this piece of junk DNA in 'species A' also corresponds in location and code in 'species B'". Junk DNA isn't the only corresponding thing, but it is one I use as I know it would perhaps bring the least resistence from you since you would likely see it as an argument against intelligent design (only I will add it is based on the premise that junk DNA has no purpose, actually being useless information developed by natural processes).

I am not against intelligent design, only against the proposal that irreducible complexity can be determined.

Yet, also at the biochemical level we have the good 'ol blood clotting mechanisms, and very different animals share many obvious features with each other even if the "code" has been adapted slightly to be uniquely their own.

From an outside perspective of the animal kingdom the vertabrate group does not constitute great diversity. It can be argued that the blood clotting mechanism once developed is necessary for a presurized vascular system required for large terrestrial lifeforms. It can also be argued that this was the development which allowed large lifeforms to take advantage of the terrestrial environment. However other than clotting mechanisms which are different for Aligators and Turtles, it is one of many features which are similar, but not found throughout the animal kingdom. We should note the distribution of these traits. In fact I am sure that just as mitochondrial DNA (mitochondria which is essential for aerobic eukaryotes) can be used for comparative analysis, so can gene sequences which govern the blood clotting mechanism(essential for pressurized terrestrial forms). This can be done because the process although the same, uses homologous proteins which are not identical from organism to organism.

I understand your analogy and would tend to agree with most of it. Still I think there are many cases of duplication across species, and I've certainly seen such cases used in arguments supportive of common descent.

Not duplication alone, unless very closely related the duplication occurs with modification.

I've written in C, Java, ASP, but mainly keep to PHP now since I am more into web development side of things.

Ah PHP the one language I have no experience in. lol

You lost me a bit. However, getting to the heart to the issue—how did the original parent program get there to begin with? Either intelligence, or random processes governed by natural laws.

Not a clue, perhaps God seeded the planet, perhaps it occured abiogenically!(sounds funny) at this point anything is speculation within the paradigm of science. However we do know that the chemicals involved naturally undergo the reactions they do regardless of whether or not they occur in a living organism.

Even disregarding what gets produced by the common language we both appear to agree exists, how did the language itself come about? You create applications in C#, but who created the language you create applications in? Who wrote the system within which the language you use compiles and runs? I think having an understanding of such things really hits home for me personally in accepting design as a common sense explanation.

The language works by the miracle of chemical properties. The reason the code works is because of the way biochemical compounds behave. So the real question is why do chemicals behave in the manor that they do?

It cuts both ways though, as you yourself admitted "without knowing if it was modified there would be the bias that it is natural." Such isn't a very scientific form of judgement.
Kurieuo

Again as I mentioned above the bias is based on the principal of biogenesis. Genetic modification complicates the picture somewhat.

[Kurieuo]

BGood,

First I would like to say that I enjoy conversing with you, although you are not here often.
The bias is due to the disproof of spontaneous generation years ago. Also the observation that only life begets life.

Thanks for the compliment. I have been fairly busy first with studies, then on holidays, and now with work, so haven't been as active as I use to. I also intended to cut down and just read posts more than make posts now.

I think you've been quite fair in your responses and judgements so far, and I've been pleasantly suprised to find we were in agreement on certain issues in my previous post...

I updated my question to be more clear. I was meaning, do you think it matters either way what one believes on origins (whether it was designed, or natural) when conducting science to discover how an organism works?

No it doesn't matter, however the observations thus far have lead to this conclusion and provides much of the driving force in creating new hypotheses', which in turn spurs the formulation for new avenues of experimentation. Bear in mind there are many new discoveries which are not a result of hypothesis' formulated on the theory of evolution, however any new discoveries will weigh against the theory.

I am inclined to agree it doesn't really matter what one believes when examining how an organism works, although the belief scientists hold can impact upon what they research. Which is why it amazes me that people (predominantly those who criticise ID) think that scientific research would come to an end if such people were scientists.

Infact I feel an assumption of design provides a more compatible foundation for understanding how an organism works. Many scientists tend to assume design in their every day work for practical purposes, for example, we can study organisms and their inner workings because we know they work by some sort of design (otherwise they wouldn't be working!). An assumption of design means features examined within the world (or a biological system) won't be too readily dismissed as junk and unworthy of attention. An example that comes to mind is "junk DNA" which has become more accepted today as not necessarily being junk remnants of evolution that no longer serving a purpose. Rather many psuedogenes have been found to serve a very important part in protein regulation. Thus, assuming they were just developments from a natural process and no longer useful meant they had been largely ignored in medical research until recently.

I'm not talking about inheritance, but true duplication. The kind of duplication which leads many evolutionary proponents to say things like, "Hey... this piece of junk DNA in 'species A' also corresponds in location and code in 'species B'". Junk DNA isn't the only corresponding thing, but it is one I use as I know it would perhaps bring the least resistence from you since you would likely see it as an argument against intelligent design (only I will add it is based on the premise that junk DNA has no purpose, actually being useless information developed by natural processes).

I am not against intelligent design, only against the proposal that irreducible complexity can be determined.

'Determined' is perhaps too strong a word. I may be inclined to agree that one could not be 'certain' that a system is IC, however, given a thorough research of a specific system I believe that one could reasonably conclude a system is IC. And if such a system isn't, then it is up to those who would disagree in the face of research presenting the complex inner workings to present a solution as to how such a system could have arisen gradually.

I've seen such discussions take place on this board, and they perhaps fell short due to both sides not having enough information or not enough experience in the related fields discussed. It seems to me people, including myself, were more talking past each other so I made an exit. However, I would love to see this kind of research and discussion taking place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but due to the current prejudices against ID it sadly doesn't appear to be happening at the moment.

Even disregarding what gets produced by the common language we both appear to agree exists, how did the language itself come about? You create applications in C#, but who created the language you create applications in? Who wrote the system within which the language you use compiles and runs? I think having an understanding of such things really hits home for me personally in accepting design as a common sense explanation.

The language works by the miracle of chemical properties. The reason the code works is because of the way biochemical compounds behave. So the real question is why do chemicals behave in the manor that they do?

And it is questions such as these that lead me to reflect upon my programming understanding. I know the language syntax, functions and libraries I work have all been developed so people like me can create applications. Likewise it seems very reasonable for me to believe that the very laws by which chemical reactions are able to take place, and by which everything within biological systems are able to work, that such have been developed to work as they do. Even given fully fledged evolution, the very fact that it would work according to a specific language (set of laws) suggests to me as a programmer that there something uncanny.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I am inclined to agree it doesn't really matter what one believes when examining how an organism works, although the belief scientists hold can impact upon what they research. Which is why it amazes me that people (predominantly those who criticise ID) think that scientific research would come to an end if such people were scientists.

I beleve the objections come from trying to place ID on an equal level with evolution. So far ID is nothing more than a hypothesis, it truly is just a theory in the normal everyday sence of the word.

Infact I feel an assumption of design provides a more compatible foundation for understanding how an organism works. Many scientists tend to assume design in their every day work for practical purposes, for example, we can study organisms and their inner workings because we know they work by some sort of design (otherwise they wouldn't be working!). An assumption of design means features examined within the world (or a biological system) won't be too readily dismissed as junk and unworthy of attention. An example that comes to mind is "junk DNA" which has become more accepted today as not necessarily being junk remnants of evolution that no longer serving a purpose. Rather many psuedogenes have been found to serve a very important part in protein regulation. Thus, assuming they were just developments from a natural process and no longer useful meant they had been largely ignored in medical research until recently.

This is a very good point and there is nothing wrong with beleifs helping to steer ones direction of investigation. The problem only comes up when beliefs skew the results of such aforementioned experiment.

'Determined' is perhaps too strong a word. I may be inclined to agree that one could not be 'certain' that a system is IC, however, given a thorough research of a specific system I believe that one could reasonably conclude a system is IC. And if such a system isn't, then it is up to those who would disagree in the face of research presenting the complex inner workings to present a solution as to how such a system could have arisen gradually.

I completely disagree, in science the onus is on the ID proponents to not only detect design but to show other proof of designers. The burdon of proof is always on the researcher, and the judgement is done through peer reviews. This same rigourous process is the burdon of evolution researchers. This is also why a scientific paper never reads like a hunch or an idea. Because proposal without empirical support belongs in the pages of National Geographic not in the annals of science.

I've seen such discussions take place on this board, and they perhaps fell short due to both sides not having enough information or not enough experience in the related fields discussed. It seems to me people, including myself, were more talking past each other so I made an exit. However, I would love to see this kind of research and discussion taking place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but due to the current prejudices against ID it sadly doesn't appear to be happening at the moment.

The prejudice is based on the theoretical state of the theory of ID at the moment. Biology doesn't want to become like theoretical physics. Science already has enough problems with the string hypothesis and the Big Expansionwhatsit. When ID develops to the point of being supported by empirical evidence then it will cause much heated debate and drive biological science to new heights.

The language works by the miracle of chemical properties. The reason the code works is because of the way biochemical compounds behave. So the real question is why do chemicals behave in the manor that they do?

And it is questions such as these that lead me to reflect upon my programming understanding. I know the language syntax, functions and libraries I work have all been developed so people like me can create applications. Likewise it seems very reasonable for me to believe that the very laws by which chemical reactions are able to take place, and by which everything within biological systems are able to work, that such have been developed to work as they do. Even given fully fledged evolution, the very fact that it would work according to a specific language (set of laws) suggests to me as a programmer that there something uncanny.

And that my friend is why science is completely compatible with religion, however don't look to science to have the answer for this mystery any time soon. However it is interesting to note that all the processing of a computer is really just the turning on and off of tiny switches.

[sandy_mcd]

No it doesn't. Something can be IC and still possibly happen naturally, but just not gradually. (see PM)

Hmm... That option hadn't occurred to me. I think of examples such as the eye or the flagella and see them as too complex and different to have developed quickly. The natural but quick route is certainly seems like a possibility which ought to be considered in some cases.