Evidence for God from Science

A new movie accessible online can be watched to do with the bacterial flagellum made by Nanotechnology Researchers Center of Japan. A good opportunity for people to get in touch with the "poster child" of the ID movement, and perhaps even understand some benefits of ID to nanotechnology.

A great report can also be read at http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html.

Kurieuo

Any idea what Keiichi Namba's opinion of ID is ?

Well, he does say that "nature created a rotary motor..." but when you're playing with a flagellum...who knows, maybe he understands where the ID proponents are coming from...

I really can't see how this has to do with ID. Yes, very complex machines, however, as stated, it is done by nature, no mention of God. This of course doesn't rule out God, but I see no true evidience for this supporting ID.

Sometimes I wonder about you.

Always, actually.

Thinker wrote:I really can't see how this has to do with ID.

The connection is the concept of "irreducible complexity", "meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed."

sandy_mcd wrote:

Thinker wrote:I really can't see how this has to do with ID.

The connection is the concept of "irreducible complexity", "meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed."

Being the not true skeptic here, but exploring areas: Can't irreducible complexity be explained by evolution down the road? What are the possibilities? I do hope ID will get in science classrooms, but proper functions need to be properly tested in order for ID to be valid. How do we know that irreducible complexity ISN'T evolution in disguise? Also, putting quotes around irreducible complexity makes it look false.

Irreducibly complex systems are in principal unevolvable thunker. It's not that we haven't found an explanation through evolution...it's that by definition evolution cannot create irreducibly complex machinery.

sandy_mcd wrote:Any idea what Keiichi Namba's opinion of ID is ?

Unsure, but I can't imagine he would be religiously against it with comments such as: "An enormous number of those macromolecules play each role just like purposefully designed machines and maintain the complex network activities." (http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/member/keiichi/keiichi.htm)

Kurieuo

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Irreducibly complex systems are in principal unevolvable thunker.

At least by any gradual evolution. Which I suppose is "evolving" in the truest sense unlike Gould's punctuation which is more of a "leaping" than "evolving" kind of change.

Kurieuo

Thinker wrote: How do we know that irreducible complexity ISN'T evolution in disguise? Also, putting quotes around irreducible complexity makes it look false.

Not sure I understand what you mean by the first question - irreducible complexity is proposed by anti-evolutionists. I put quotes around the term to delineate it as a term which was then defined; I put quotes around the definition because I cut-and-pasted it from somewhere else and did not write it myself. As is all too often the case, my attempts at clarifying things only succeed in muddying the waters. I put it in red to see if i could.

Kurieuo wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Irreducibly complex systems are in principal unevolvable thunker.

At least by any gradual evolution. Which I suppose is "evolving" in the truest sense unlike Gould's punctuation which is more of a "leaping" than "evolving" kind of change.

Kurieuo

Well, Gould's excuse...wouldn't fit here, because there is no mechanism other than blind chance that can work in this case...at least with the excuse, there's some vague force-stress from environment...right?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Thinker wrote: How do we know that irreducible complexity ISN'T evolution in disguise? Also, putting quotes around irreducible complexity makes it look false.

Not sure I understand what you mean by the first question - irreducible complexity is proposed by anti-evolutionists.

If by anti-evolutionists, then why can't evolutionists reverse it and find a way to fit it into their system? Perhaps another revision or two (hundred) ?

Sandy, I think it's a little misleading to say anti-evolutionists...how would you like me to call you an anti-Christian...or anti-Intelligent Designer? Or anti-science?