Events
Publications
Latest imagesEvolucija ili Kreacija
ex-iskon-pleme :: Društvo :: Religija
Page 23 of 50
Page 23 of 50 • 
1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 36 ... 50
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 10/5/2014, 16:59
speare_shaker wrote:Vegvísir wrote:
zaboli me što je i kako je pisano tamo i tko je koga tamo uvrijedio. Ne zanimaju me ničiji privatni obračuni koji su zaostali kao repovi s nethaera.
Eh da je samo riječ o repovima s nethaerovog foruma.
Ali nije.
Ponavljam, aganor je TRAJNO baniran na svim forumima na kojima se pojavio. Na nethaerovom čak nekoliko puta jer nije odustajao od prakse da se uporno iznova pojavljuje pod novim nadimcima.
To će se prije ili kasnije dogoditi i na ovom forumu, a svaki će drugačiji stav po tom pitanju prije ili kasnije biti suočen sa realnošću i tvrdo prizemljen.
Ako se tebe i tvoje konsorte sprijeci u otvorenoj netoleranciji, onda ja ne vidim nikakva problema za sebe, nego za tebe.
Pokazao sam ti u svim nasim diskusijama da si ti meni do koljena i denuncirao sam tvoje neznanje u svim domenama u kojima smo se sukobili.
Tvoje papagajske C/P obaram bez veceg truda, jer poznajem moderna znanstvena dostignuca, o kojima ti tek sanjati mozes, buduci da nisi u stanju koristiti primarnu znanstvenu literaturu, nego se cak niti u sekundarnoj ne snalazis najbolje.
U diskusiji o eteru, anizotropiji pozadinskog zracenja, odnosu znanosti i znanstvenika prema Bogu i religiji, nedokazivosti evolucije kao znanstvene teorije razvoja zivota na zemlji, abiogenezi, porijeklu informacije u univerzumu i svim drugim aspektima evolutivnog ucenja, kao i identifikacije teorije evolucije sa ateizmom u tzv. ideologiju zvanu "EVOLUCIONIZAM", pokazao sam ti granice i denuncirao te kao i uvjek do sada kao neznalicu i papagaja, koji uvjek ponavlja iste mantre ili donosi otrcani C/P u diskusiju, bez rezona i logike. Niti jedan put nisi uspio odgovoriti na moja postavljena pitanja. To govori za sebe.
Zato ja nikada ne bjezim od bilo koje vrste diskusije s tobom, na bilo koju temu, kako bi galerija vidjela, da ti nisi u stanju voditi jednu ravnopravnu diskusiju sa mnom, po pitanju elokventnosti i racionalnosti i znanstvenog pristupa temi.
Ako se odreknes spamiranja teme svojim inadekvatnim C/P-om, onda od tvoje argumentacije ne ostaje nista sto bi bilo za bilo koju vrstu satisfakcije. Ostajes potpuno gol, tabula rasa za mene. Neuk, ohol i napuhan, ali potpuno iracionalan u diskursu, ti pokusavas svoju inferiornost egalitirati prijetnjama sa administracijom i konsekvencijom koja bi iz toga slijedila, a to je ban za mene.
To su neposteni prilazi diskusiji, jer onaj koji tolerira misljenje drugih kao ja, taj se ne treba bojati nepravde, jer ako se i ugodi tvojoj traznji, ti uvjek ostajes moralni gubitnik. Ja kako napisah toleriram svako misljenje, ali ga posteno kritiziram, ako je to potreba. Nikog ne silim da prihvati moje osobno misljenje, ali moje znanstvene Argumente treba uvazavati.
Ovo sto ti donosis kao C/P je obicni sund heretika katolicke vjere s jedne strane, ili pseudoznanstvenika sa druge strane. Coyne je obicni heretik, koji hvala Bogu nema neki veci znacaj u RKC.
Papa Ivan Pavao II je znao koga ima u Vatikanu u zvjezdarnici, ali ga je pustio da radi, kako se nebi pozalio i povukao za sobom drugi slucaj Galileo.
Na ovoj adresi dolje, naravno na njemackom jeziku imas jedno (PIP2)-papino pismo tom Heretiku, za vrijeme jednog simpozija; kako bi ga ukljucio u posebno izdanje tekstova toga zasjedanja.
Papa niti je kada priznao teoriju Evolucije, niti je ijedan Papa moze priznati, jer to je ateisticka teorija bez Boga.
Nema zurbe, ta ce teorija uskoro biti opovrgnuta i prikazana kao najveca laz koja se ikada sirila sa katedra univerza i skola.
A ovdje imas papin tekst. Ne zuri sa citanjem, jer njemacki jezik je jedan od vrlo teskih jezika. Nece ti naskoditi, ako isti tekst potrazis na engleskom. Sumnjam da ces nesto razumjeti od svega toga, ali kako nebi mogao reci da sam ti ostao duzan, i da se nisi zapjenio na moj odgovor, nudim ti ga na uvid. Ako te je vec sama deptresija zahvatila u cjelini tvoga bica, onda bar zauzdaj svoju manicnu komponentu u njoj i mozda ces izdrzati u citanju do samog kraja ovoga teksta.
http://www.forum-grenzfragen.de/kirchenamtliches/paepstliches/paepstliches/schreiben-an-george-coyne.html
Michael1- Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Iosephvs 10/5/2014, 17:28
evolucija ili božja po bibliji kreacija? definitivno evolucija.
_________________
SLAVA UKRAINI!
Iosephvs-
Posts : 240
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : Res Pvblica Corrvptia
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Guest 10/5/2014, 22:12
Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.
At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.
The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.
The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.
The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.
"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.
The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools.
"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.
From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said.
That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection.
"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.
What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.
The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.
"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.
From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.
At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.
The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.
The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.
The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.
"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.
The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools.
"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.
From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said.
That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection.
"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.
What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.
The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.
"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.
From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm
Guest- Guest
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Guest 10/5/2014, 22:23
The Telegraph
The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time".
Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.
The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.
Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.
Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.
They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.
The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time".
Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.
The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.
Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.
Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.
They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.
The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
Guest- Guest
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Guest 10/5/2014, 22:24
Michael1 wrote:
Papa niti je kada priznao teoriju Evolucije, niti je ijedan Papa moze priznati, jer to je ateisticka teorija bez Boga.
Onda ćeš se morati pomiriti s činjenicom da je papa po tvojim kriterijima bio ateist i da će to biti i svi ostali njegovi nasljednici.
Guest- Guest
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Guest 10/5/2014, 22:29
Michael1 wrote:
Kao sto sam i mislio, on uvjek misli da ce ga administratori braniti. Ako ti u pomanjkanju znanja i valjane argumentacije izgubis zivce i u psihopatoloskoj maniri jednog socijalnog slucaja, trazis da se mene banira, jer obaram tvoje nesuvisle lazi i neznanje, onda je to paradni primjer netolerancije. Niti na jednom forumu ja nisam pravedno baniran, nego se uvjek nadje copor naznalica, koji se u pomanjkanju znanja i tolerancije uvjek pozivaju na administraciju, da ih zastiti.
Pod koprenom netolerancije, koju meni pripisuju po uhodanim principima jednoumlja, kojeg su pokupili u propalom komunizmu, oni svoje misljenje dogmatiziraju, te psuju i truju sve sto nije kompatibilno sa tim misljenjem.
Guest- Guest
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:51
Kao i uvjek pribjegavas sredstvima diskriminacije i netolerancije, jer o argumentima ti nemas pojma. Zasto se nisi u stanju upustiti u jedno serioznu diskusiju o univerzumu i zivotu u njemu, sa mnom? Pa razlog je i evidentan i porazan za tebe: ja tebe vodam kao vola sa brnjicom u nosu po forumu, i obaram tvoje pseudoargumente kada i kako zelim. Tebi nista drugo i ne preostaje, osim ad hominem tirada.
Ako zelis daljnju diskusiju, onda pocni vec jednom argumentirati, ako ne, idi svojim putem u miru. A ako ti treba pomoc, neovisno koje vrste, jer ja ti zelim pomoci, kao i svim socijalnim slucajevima koji zive pod mostom i kradu Bogu dane, onda mi to javi.
Ako zelis daljnju diskusiju, onda pocni vec jednom argumentirati, ako ne, idi svojim putem u miru. A ako ti treba pomoc, neovisno koje vrste, jer ja ti zelim pomoci, kao i svim socijalnim slucajevima koji zive pod mostom i kradu Bogu dane, onda mi to javi.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:52
John Lennox, profesor matematike o militantnom neoateismu.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:54
Dva znanstvenika o Bogu i svijetu.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:55
Dawkins i Lennox u diskusiji.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:57
Jos jedna diskusija o Dawiksovoj knjizi "The God Delusion".................
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 07:59
C. Hitchens i Lennox u diskusiji o Bogu i svijetu.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Guest 11/5/2014, 08:03
Michael1 wrote:Kao i uvjek pribjegavas sredstvima diskriminacije i netolerancije, jer o argumentima ti nemas pojma. Zasto se nisi u stanju upustiti u jedno serioznu diskusiju o univerzumu i zivotu u njemu, sa mnom? Pa razlog je i evidentan i porazan za tebe: ja tebe vodam kao vola sa brnjicom u nosu po forumu, i obaram tvoje pseudoargumente kada i kako zelim. Tebi nista drugo i ne preostaje, osim ad hominem tirada.
Ako zelis daljnju diskusiju, onda pocni vec jednom argumentirati, ako ne, idi svojim putem u miru. A ako ti treba pomoc, neovisno koje vrste, jer ja ti zelim pomoci, kao i svim socijalnim slucajevima koji zive pod mostom i kradu Bogu dane, onda mi to javi.
Upravo zbog ovakvih i sličnih neprestanih očito bolesnih ispada najgoreg trola koji se ikada pojavio na bespućima virtualne stvarnosti ovih prostora tražim od admina trajnu zabranu pristupa pacijentu na ovaj forum, inače višestruko trajno baniranom svugdjje gdje je promolio svoj nos i izašao sa evidentno bolesnim svjetonazorom i stavovima.
Ukoliko se to ne dogodi do kraja ovoga tjedna i početka slijedećeg, ja ću ukinuti svoj nadimak, a vi slobodno nastavite uživati u smradu koje oko sebe šire ovakve i slične spodobe.
Guest- Guest
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 08:12
Diskusija o Dawkinsovoj knjizi i njezinim tendencioznim lazima: Ovdje:
The God Delusion Debate - Richard Dawkins Vs. John Lennox
Distinguished Oxford University Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox Debate Evolutionism and Creationism
If Christians are to be always ready to give an answer for the reason of the hope that is within us (I Pet. 3:15) and not have any fear or be troubled about reasons for unbelievers questions about the existence of God, the Creator (v 14) , then the DVD, "The God Delusion Debate" ^ from Fixed Point Foundation is one worth watching. If atheists want poignant responses to Christians questions, then its worth owning. Indeed, I highly recommend it for both believers and non-believers. Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins debates with fellow Oxford University Professor John Lennox, in an Evolution vs. Creation debate that answers the most perplexing issues between both sides.
Richard Dawkins' best seller, The God Delusion*, basically asserts that believers in God are in delusion, but John Lennox asserts the veracity of the Bible and of Creation. This debate was recorded on October 3rd, 2007, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to a sold-out auditorium and world-wide audience and was captured on DVD. This is perhaps the greatest debate ever between Evolution and Creation between, arguably, the two greatest scientific minds in the 21st Century. What is remarkable is that Professor Dawkins does not, as a rule, debate with Creationists over the existence of God and Him as Creator.
Even Professor Dawkins admits that the Fixed Point Foundation, the non-profit organization that produced the DVD, "has an honesty, and an integrity that belies its Christian heritage". So after a thorough review of this DVD, I am presenting what I hope is an honest dialogue of the two men, with both perspectives with respect to their beliefs. This DVD is a thoughtful and civil discussion and not a heated debate and the auditorium audience seems split in its support of the men. The time given near the men's remarks, e.g., (10 or 33:33), is in minutes and seconds and later on in hours, e.g., (1:12) and is an approximate area where their comments may be found.
To begin with, Professor Dawkins began with his own explanation for his belief in Evolution. He says that "I found Darwin's explanation for life" made sense (12). He says that religious ideas are outdates, a delusion and calls it the "dragon of religion". He states that we don't need religion or a "holy book" to teach us the virtue of "not understanding (20).
Professor Lennox began by saying that "God has revealed Himself in the universe and in Jesus Christ" and that religion "does not build a firewall against scientific knowledge", quoting C.S. Lewis as either Jesus Christ is a liar, a maniac or is God Himself and telling the truth. There are no other options but the three (18).
Professor Dawkins then responds by saying that "The awesomeness of the universe's beauty makes us naturally want to worship. Science is an emancipation from religion to nature itself. The supreme achievement is from natural causes (23:40)." Everything came from bacteria - we don't know the process. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not needing to know (25).
Professor Lennox then says to Professor Dawkins that "You have no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster". It is rational and there is evidence for God's existence. Science is limited (27:45). Science can not decide moral, objective values. We know that strychnine added to your grandma's tea will kill her. It can not tell you why it is wrong. It is because there is a Moral Lawgiver. In the 16th and 17th Centuries, scientific knowledge exploded. Newton's Laws came about because he understood it increased praise of his God (30:33).
Professor Dawkins responded that it is "rationalism versus superstition. Faith is evidence? he asks, looking at Professor Lennox (32). Professor Lennox says, while looking at Professor Dawkins, "You have faith in your wife. You have evidence for it, right (33)?" Professor Dawkins responds by saying, it is "naturalism versus superstition. Creationism in the classroom - that's wrong (35); religion is about scientific claims about the universe - it's scientific? (37)"
Professor Lennox says that "Atheism undermines science" and that life is supposed to have "evolved by unguided random events. If our mind is just random atom movements of our brain, then how can we believe in any science? (41)" Continuing, he said "accidents?" If the universe is not constant and exact or it can not support life. Then Professor Lennox mentions Astronomy. Atheism would have us believe that the universe came out of nothing. No, there is an "underlying cause - planned" its exact, precise. The Big Bang, coming to full fruition if scientific thought in the 1960's, "Shows a finite beginning of space, time and matter. There was a beginning (43)."
Professor Dawkins says that if miracles did occur, they are "to be judged by scientific methods. Science deals with reality, religion - everything else." The question of 'Who made God?'. Professor Dawkins sees it as "an infinite regress from which He can not escape - who designed the Designer (46)?". About the origin of the universe, Professor Dawkins says, "We don't know the Cosmology - Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin (46:40). Darwin can not explain the origin of the universe (51)."
Professor Lennox then answers the question, 'Who designed the Designer? Who created God?". Well then, who created creation? No one believes in a created God. In John, Chapter One, 'In the beginning was the Word. Darwin believes in something eternal, like the universe (53)." DNA carries meaning...the meaning of the message is not found in the message (56)." [entering the second hour]
Professor Dawkins was asked about his reference to John Lennon's "Imagine" song, which describes a world without religion. "No suicide bombers, no 911, no Taliban. Even mild religion provides a climate of fanaticism. God still needs an explanation (1:01). Christianity [is] being dangerous to children - the evils of teaching them that faith if a virtue." He acknowledges that its "only a minority" that do this. Professor Lennox interrupts saying, "That's not said in your book though...". Professor Dawkins continued, saying religion is "Convention - not to be questioned - and respected. Faith is a terrible weapon which justifies terrible facts (1:04)."
Professor Lennox responds saying, "DNA [is a] biological message from an Intelligent Designer, better than a 'blind watchmaker' (1:05). Jesus was put on trial as a dangerous radical religious leader, yet Pilot found Him guiltless." Then he comments on "A world without atheism. No Pol Pot, no 'killing fields', no communistic murder of millions. Millions more died under atheism than Christianity in order to get rid of religions. Jews, Christian...any religious people" (1:05). Continuing, Professor Lennox says, that "Religion is not an open invitation to fanaticism - Christ taught the opposite. (1:10)"
Professor Dawkins then concedes that all "religious people do not do bad things - Atheism...Marxism was bad. Atheism is not like religion - to drive me to be a fanatical killer (1:12). The 911 bombers were rationale, logical people who thought [it was] Allah's will and their heaven and paradise were guaranteed (1:13). You may not do terrible things because you are an atheist, but you might because you're a religious fanatic (1:15). Professor Lennox adds, "Atheism is a faith...don't you believe? You believe that all the universe is all there is. (1:15)"
Professor Dawkins then says, "you don't need God to be moral...or you're trying to suck up and get rewards. You need a book for that!? If they do, their morals are hideous! A universal moral acceptance 'The Golden Rule' is just common sense. Morals came from our evolutionary past. Good deeds allowed for sex. The Darwinian pressure for God is gone and contraceptives render good deeds not necessary. (1:17) Moral consensus has gone on. Every time you use contraceptives, you've removed any imperatives" (1:22).
Professor Lennox responds by saying "The very fact that an atheist can be good is not possible without a foundation. You can not get ethics from science (1:24). You (pointing to Professor Dawkins) said that 'there is no good or evil' and why mention 'universal moral acceptance if we are only 'bouncing DNA'? (1:25)" [referring to Professor Dawkins' book] If we're only dancing to our DNA, the how can morality or the 'Golden Rule' exist, as you called it (1:26)? You can't go from facts to values. So morality is from raw nature?!" You have said in your book (p. 92) that 'miracles violate the laws of natures' (1:26). "Miracles are not violations of natural laws. Jesus' resurrection is the basis of my faith and the historicity of His existence a fact" (1:38).
After closing remarks by both men, the audience provides a thunderous, standing ovation to both men, it would appear. One of the best debates I have ever seen in my life. I will not say who won or who lost. I know who presented the better arguments, and you might imagine who I believe best presented their case if you know me, but I will let you be the judge of that. I would recommend the DVD of The God Delusion Debate. It is thoroughly entertaining and both men intelligently respond...and with all due respect, I applaud them both.
Originally published on : EverydayChristian.com/Blogs
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-god-delusion-debate-richard-dawkins-vs-john-lennox-6575424.html
The God Delusion Debate - Richard Dawkins Vs. John Lennox
Distinguished Oxford University Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox Debate Evolutionism and Creationism
If Christians are to be always ready to give an answer for the reason of the hope that is within us (I Pet. 3:15) and not have any fear or be troubled about reasons for unbelievers questions about the existence of God, the Creator (v 14) , then the DVD, "The God Delusion Debate" ^ from Fixed Point Foundation is one worth watching. If atheists want poignant responses to Christians questions, then its worth owning. Indeed, I highly recommend it for both believers and non-believers. Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins debates with fellow Oxford University Professor John Lennox, in an Evolution vs. Creation debate that answers the most perplexing issues between both sides.
Richard Dawkins' best seller, The God Delusion*, basically asserts that believers in God are in delusion, but John Lennox asserts the veracity of the Bible and of Creation. This debate was recorded on October 3rd, 2007, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to a sold-out auditorium and world-wide audience and was captured on DVD. This is perhaps the greatest debate ever between Evolution and Creation between, arguably, the two greatest scientific minds in the 21st Century. What is remarkable is that Professor Dawkins does not, as a rule, debate with Creationists over the existence of God and Him as Creator.
Even Professor Dawkins admits that the Fixed Point Foundation, the non-profit organization that produced the DVD, "has an honesty, and an integrity that belies its Christian heritage". So after a thorough review of this DVD, I am presenting what I hope is an honest dialogue of the two men, with both perspectives with respect to their beliefs. This DVD is a thoughtful and civil discussion and not a heated debate and the auditorium audience seems split in its support of the men. The time given near the men's remarks, e.g., (10 or 33:33), is in minutes and seconds and later on in hours, e.g., (1:12) and is an approximate area where their comments may be found.
To begin with, Professor Dawkins began with his own explanation for his belief in Evolution. He says that "I found Darwin's explanation for life" made sense (12). He says that religious ideas are outdates, a delusion and calls it the "dragon of religion". He states that we don't need religion or a "holy book" to teach us the virtue of "not understanding (20).
Professor Lennox began by saying that "God has revealed Himself in the universe and in Jesus Christ" and that religion "does not build a firewall against scientific knowledge", quoting C.S. Lewis as either Jesus Christ is a liar, a maniac or is God Himself and telling the truth. There are no other options but the three (18).
Professor Dawkins then responds by saying that "The awesomeness of the universe's beauty makes us naturally want to worship. Science is an emancipation from religion to nature itself. The supreme achievement is from natural causes (23:40)." Everything came from bacteria - we don't know the process. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not needing to know (25).
Professor Lennox then says to Professor Dawkins that "You have no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster". It is rational and there is evidence for God's existence. Science is limited (27:45). Science can not decide moral, objective values. We know that strychnine added to your grandma's tea will kill her. It can not tell you why it is wrong. It is because there is a Moral Lawgiver. In the 16th and 17th Centuries, scientific knowledge exploded. Newton's Laws came about because he understood it increased praise of his God (30:33).
Professor Dawkins responded that it is "rationalism versus superstition. Faith is evidence? he asks, looking at Professor Lennox (32). Professor Lennox says, while looking at Professor Dawkins, "You have faith in your wife. You have evidence for it, right (33)?" Professor Dawkins responds by saying, it is "naturalism versus superstition. Creationism in the classroom - that's wrong (35); religion is about scientific claims about the universe - it's scientific? (37)"
Professor Lennox says that "Atheism undermines science" and that life is supposed to have "evolved by unguided random events. If our mind is just random atom movements of our brain, then how can we believe in any science? (41)" Continuing, he said "accidents?" If the universe is not constant and exact or it can not support life. Then Professor Lennox mentions Astronomy. Atheism would have us believe that the universe came out of nothing. No, there is an "underlying cause - planned" its exact, precise. The Big Bang, coming to full fruition if scientific thought in the 1960's, "Shows a finite beginning of space, time and matter. There was a beginning (43)."
Professor Dawkins says that if miracles did occur, they are "to be judged by scientific methods. Science deals with reality, religion - everything else." The question of 'Who made God?'. Professor Dawkins sees it as "an infinite regress from which He can not escape - who designed the Designer (46)?". About the origin of the universe, Professor Dawkins says, "We don't know the Cosmology - Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin (46:40). Darwin can not explain the origin of the universe (51)."
Professor Lennox then answers the question, 'Who designed the Designer? Who created God?". Well then, who created creation? No one believes in a created God. In John, Chapter One, 'In the beginning was the Word. Darwin believes in something eternal, like the universe (53)." DNA carries meaning...the meaning of the message is not found in the message (56)." [entering the second hour]
Professor Dawkins was asked about his reference to John Lennon's "Imagine" song, which describes a world without religion. "No suicide bombers, no 911, no Taliban. Even mild religion provides a climate of fanaticism. God still needs an explanation (1:01). Christianity [is] being dangerous to children - the evils of teaching them that faith if a virtue." He acknowledges that its "only a minority" that do this. Professor Lennox interrupts saying, "That's not said in your book though...". Professor Dawkins continued, saying religion is "Convention - not to be questioned - and respected. Faith is a terrible weapon which justifies terrible facts (1:04)."
Professor Lennox responds saying, "DNA [is a] biological message from an Intelligent Designer, better than a 'blind watchmaker' (1:05). Jesus was put on trial as a dangerous radical religious leader, yet Pilot found Him guiltless." Then he comments on "A world without atheism. No Pol Pot, no 'killing fields', no communistic murder of millions. Millions more died under atheism than Christianity in order to get rid of religions. Jews, Christian...any religious people" (1:05). Continuing, Professor Lennox says, that "Religion is not an open invitation to fanaticism - Christ taught the opposite. (1:10)"
Professor Dawkins then concedes that all "religious people do not do bad things - Atheism...Marxism was bad. Atheism is not like religion - to drive me to be a fanatical killer (1:12). The 911 bombers were rationale, logical people who thought [it was] Allah's will and their heaven and paradise were guaranteed (1:13). You may not do terrible things because you are an atheist, but you might because you're a religious fanatic (1:15). Professor Lennox adds, "Atheism is a faith...don't you believe? You believe that all the universe is all there is. (1:15)"
Professor Dawkins then says, "you don't need God to be moral...or you're trying to suck up and get rewards. You need a book for that!? If they do, their morals are hideous! A universal moral acceptance 'The Golden Rule' is just common sense. Morals came from our evolutionary past. Good deeds allowed for sex. The Darwinian pressure for God is gone and contraceptives render good deeds not necessary. (1:17) Moral consensus has gone on. Every time you use contraceptives, you've removed any imperatives" (1:22).
Professor Lennox responds by saying "The very fact that an atheist can be good is not possible without a foundation. You can not get ethics from science (1:24). You (pointing to Professor Dawkins) said that 'there is no good or evil' and why mention 'universal moral acceptance if we are only 'bouncing DNA'? (1:25)" [referring to Professor Dawkins' book] If we're only dancing to our DNA, the how can morality or the 'Golden Rule' exist, as you called it (1:26)? You can't go from facts to values. So morality is from raw nature?!" You have said in your book (p. 92) that 'miracles violate the laws of natures' (1:26). "Miracles are not violations of natural laws. Jesus' resurrection is the basis of my faith and the historicity of His existence a fact" (1:38).
After closing remarks by both men, the audience provides a thunderous, standing ovation to both men, it would appear. One of the best debates I have ever seen in my life. I will not say who won or who lost. I know who presented the better arguments, and you might imagine who I believe best presented their case if you know me, but I will let you be the judge of that. I would recommend the DVD of The God Delusion Debate. It is thoroughly entertaining and both men intelligently respond...and with all due respect, I applaud them both.
Originally published on : EverydayChristian.com/Blogs
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-god-delusion-debate-richard-dawkins-vs-john-lennox-6575424.html
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 08:20
speare_shaker wrote:Michael1 wrote:Kao i uvjek pribjegavas sredstvima diskriminacije i netolerancije, jer o argumentima ti nemas pojma. Zasto se nisi u stanju upustiti u jedno serioznu diskusiju o univerzumu i zivotu u njemu, sa mnom? Pa razlog je i evidentan i porazan za tebe: ja tebe vodam kao vola sa brnjicom u nosu po forumu, i obaram tvoje pseudoargumente kada i kako zelim. Tebi nista drugo i ne preostaje, osim ad hominem tirada.
Ako zelis daljnju diskusiju, onda pocni vec jednom argumentirati, ako ne, idi svojim putem u miru. A ako ti treba pomoc, neovisno koje vrste, jer ja ti zelim pomoci, kao i svim socijalnim slucajevima koji zive pod mostom i kradu Bogu dane, onda mi to javi.
Upravo zbog ovakvih i sličnih neprestanih očito bolesnih ispada najgoreg trola koji se ikada pojavio na bespućima virtualne stvarnosti ovih prostora tražim od admina trajnu zabranu pristupa pacijentu na ovaj forum, inače višestruko trajno baniranom svugdjje gdje je promolio svoj nos i izašao sa evidentno bolesnim svjetonazorom i stavovima.
Ukoliko se to ne dogodi do kraja ovoga tjedna i početka slijedećeg, ja ću ukinuti svoj nadimak, a vi slobodno nastavite uživati u smradu koje oko sebe šire ovakve i slične spodobe.
Daj molio bih te, pocasti virtualni community svojim odstupanjem sa foruma, ali ne za tjedan dana, nego kako bi bilo odmah? Potjerali ste "henoka" sa foruma, a sada je red na ostalim krscanima posebno katolicima, koji su za vas trn u oku.
E vidis, ja se svojevoljno nikada necu povuci, nego cu vas sve, pojedinacno i skupno stjerati u misije rupe, iz kojih se uvjek izvlacite i serete po Krscanstvu, krscanima i Bogu. Ako ja odem sa ovoga foruma, onda ga mozete odmah zatvoriti, jer tko cita takve luzere kao tebe. NITKO! I to svi znaju. Zato cim prije odes, tim bolje za Forum.
Cijeli forum ce konacno odahnuti, da se rijesio jednog bolesnog kverulanta, koji nije u stanju racionalno braniti svoj stav, pa onda pribjegava represiji.
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 08:22
Evidencija Kreatora u prirodi:
http://nextgenmelbourne.com/evidence-of-a-creator-in-nature-john-lennox
http://nextgenmelbourne.com/evidence-of-a-creator-in-nature-john-lennox
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 08:28
Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Michael J. Behe
A Series of Eyes
How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.
As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.
Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.
But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism1:
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.
He had an excellent reason for declining to answer the question: 19th century science had not progressed to the point where the matter could even be approached. The question of how the eye works--that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina--simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanism of life could be answered at that time. How do animal muscles cause movement? How does photosynthesis work? How is energy extracted from food? How does the body fight infection? Nobody knew.
Calvinism
Now, it appears to be a characteristic of the human mind that when it is unconstrained by knowledge of the mechanisms of a process, then it seems easy to imagine simple steps leading from non-function to function. A happy example of this is seen in the popular comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. Little boy Calvin is always having adventures in the company of his tiger Hobbes by jumping in a box and traveling back in time, or grabbing a toy ray gun and "transmogrifying" himself into various animal shapes, or again using a box as a duplicator and making copies of himself to deal with worldly powers such as his mom and his teachers. A small child such as Calvin finds it easy to imagine that a box just might be able to fly like an airplane (or something), because Calvin does not know how airplanes work.
A good example from the biological world of complex changes appearing to be simple is the belief in spontaneous generation. One of the chief proponents of the theory of spontaneous generation during the middle of the 19th century was Ernst Haeckel, a great admirer of Darwin and an eager popularizer of Darwin's theory. From the limited view of cells that 19th century microscopes provided, Haeckel believed that a cell was a "simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon," 2 not much different from a piece of microscopic Jello. Thus it seemed to Haeckel that such simple life could easily be produced from inanimate material. In 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of Species, an exploratory vessel, H.M.S. Cyclops, dredged up some curious looking mud from the sea bottom. Eventually Haeckel came to observe the mud and thought that it closely resembled some cells he had seen under a microscope. Excitedly he brought this to the attention of Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's great friend and defender. Huxley, too, became convinced that it was Urschleim (that is, protoplasm), the progenitor of life itself, and Huxley named the mud Bathybius Haeckelii after the eminent proponent of abiogenesis.
The mud failed to grow. In later years, with the development of new biochemical techniques and improved microscopes, the complexity of the cell was revealed. The "simple lumps" were shown to contain thousands of different types of organic molecules, proteins, and nucleic acids, many discrete subcellular structures, specialized compartments for specialized processes, and an extremely complicated architecture. Looking back from the perspective of our time, the episode of Bathybius Haeckelii seems silly or downright embarrassing, but it shouldn't. Haeckel and Huxley were behaving naturally, like Calvin: since they were unaware of the complexity of cells, they found it easy to believe that cells could originate from simple mud.
Throughout history there have been many other examples, similar to that of Haeckel, Huxley and the cell, where a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle was beyond the understanding of the age. In science there is even a whimsical term for a machine or structure or process that does something, but the actual mechanism by which it accomplishes its task is unknown: it is called a 'black box.' In Darwin's time all of biology was a black box: not only the cell, or the eye, or digestion, or immunity, but every biological structure and function because, ultimately, no one could explain how biological processes occurred.
Ernst Mayr, the prominent biologist, historian, and guiding force behind the neo-Darwinian synthesis, has pointed out that 3:
Any scientific revolution has to accept all sorts of black boxes, for if one had to wait until all black boxes are opened, one would never have any conceptual advances.
That is true. But in earlier days when black boxes were finally opened science, and sometimes the whole world, appeared to change. Biology has progressed tremendously due to the model that Darwin put forth. But the black boxes Darwin accepted are now being opened, and our view of the world is again being shaken.
Proteins
In order to understand the molecular basis of life it is necessary to understand how things called "proteins" work. Although most people think of protein" as something you eat, one of the major food groups, when they reside in the body of an uneaten animal or plant proteins serve a different purpose. Proteins are the machinery of living tissue that builds the structures and carries out the chemical reactions necessary for life. For example, the first of many steps necessary for the conversion of sugar to biologically-usable forms of energy is carried out by a protein called hexokinase. Skin is made in large measure of a protein called collagen. When light impinges on your retina it interacts first with a protein called rhodopsin. As can be seen even by this limited number of examples proteins carry out amazingly diverse functions. However, in general a given protein can perform only one or a few functions: rhodopsin cannot form skin and collagen cannot interact usefully with light. Therefore a typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different types of proteins to perform the many tasks necessary for life, much like a carpenter's workshop might contain many different kinds of tools for various carpentry work.
What do these versatile tools look like? The basic structure of proteins is quite simple: they are formed by hooking together in a chain discrete subunits called amino acids. Although the protein chain can consist of anywhere from about 50 to about 1,000 amino acid links, each position can only contain one of twenty different amino acids. In this way they are much like words: words can come in various lengths but they are made up from a discrete set of 26 letters. Now, a protein in a cell does not float around like a floppy chain; rather, it folds up into a very precise structure which can be quite different for different types of proteins. When all is said and done two different amino sequences--two different proteins--can be folded to structures as specific as and different from each other as a three-eighths inch wrench and a jigsaw. And like the household tools, if the shape of the proteins is significantly warped then they fail to do their jobs.
The Eyesight of Man
In general, biological processes on the molecular level are performed by networks of proteins, each member of which carries out a particular task in a chain.
Let us return to the question, how do we see? Although to Darwin the primary event of vision was a black box, through the efforts of many biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand. 4 When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.
The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previouslyadded hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.
To Explain Life
Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton's theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.
"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated," said Darwin in the 19th century. But both phenomena have attracted the interest of modern biochemistry. The story of the slow paralysis of research on life's origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of originoflife studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. 5
The purpose of this paper is to show that the same problems which beset origin-of-life research also bedevil efforts to show how virtually any complex biochemical system came about. Biochemistry has revealed a molecular world which stoutly resists explanation by the same theory that has long been applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's black boxes--the origin of life or the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems--has been accounted for by his theory.
Irreducible Complexity
In The Origin of Species Darwin stated 6:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.
Consider the humble mousetrap (Figure 1). The mousetraps that my family uses in our home to deal with unwelcome rodents consist of a number of parts. There are: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and (5) a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch. There are also assorted staples and screws to hold the system together.
Figure 1. A household mousetrap. The working parts of the trap are labeled. If any of the parts are missing the trap does not function.
If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled.
Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex. Thus, irreducibly complex systems exist.
Molecular Machines
Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are.
Earlier we discussed proteins. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. 7
Figure 2a.[size=undefined] Animation of a Cilium[/size]
Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell's surface or to "row" single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.
But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2a and b). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.
Figure 2b. Schematic drawing of part of a cilium. The power stroke of the motor protein, dynein, attached to one microtubule, against subfiber B of a neighboring microtubule causes the fibers to slide past each other. The flexible linker protein, nexin, converts the sliding motion to a bending motion.
Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.
What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.
The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.
The Study of "Molecular Evolution"
Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field. In a recent issue of JME there were published eleven articles; of these, all eleven were concerned simply with the analysis of protein or DNA sequences. None of the papers discussed detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
Sequence comparisons overwhelmingly dominate the literature of molecular evolution. But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked. Thus in this area science is mute. This means that when we infer that complex biochemical systems were designed, we are contradicting no experimental result, we are in conflict with no theoretical study. No experiments needs to be questioned, but the interpretation of all experiments must now be reexamined, just as the results of experiments that were consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe had to be reinterpreted when the waveparticle duality of matter was discerned.
Conclusion
It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion 8:
Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single windingup at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.
Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.
In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.
It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting ofthe C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University.
References
Mike Behe received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Drexel University in 1974 and the Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. After doing postdoctoral work at the National institutes of Health he became assistant professor of Chemistry at the City University of New York/Queens College. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA, where he is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences. Mike is married to the former Celeste LaTassa. They are members of St. Theresa Parish in Hellertown, PA, where they are raising their six children: Grace, age 10; Benedict, 9; Clare, 7; Leo, 5; Rose, 3; and Vincent, 1. Look for Dr. Behe's new book published by the Free Press, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
Copyright ©1997 Michael Behe. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 9.24.96
[size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined] [/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Michael J. Behe
A Series of Eyes
How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.
As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.
Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.
But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism1:
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.
He had an excellent reason for declining to answer the question: 19th century science had not progressed to the point where the matter could even be approached. The question of how the eye works--that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina--simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanism of life could be answered at that time. How do animal muscles cause movement? How does photosynthesis work? How is energy extracted from food? How does the body fight infection? Nobody knew.
Calvinism
Now, it appears to be a characteristic of the human mind that when it is unconstrained by knowledge of the mechanisms of a process, then it seems easy to imagine simple steps leading from non-function to function. A happy example of this is seen in the popular comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. Little boy Calvin is always having adventures in the company of his tiger Hobbes by jumping in a box and traveling back in time, or grabbing a toy ray gun and "transmogrifying" himself into various animal shapes, or again using a box as a duplicator and making copies of himself to deal with worldly powers such as his mom and his teachers. A small child such as Calvin finds it easy to imagine that a box just might be able to fly like an airplane (or something), because Calvin does not know how airplanes work.
A good example from the biological world of complex changes appearing to be simple is the belief in spontaneous generation. One of the chief proponents of the theory of spontaneous generation during the middle of the 19th century was Ernst Haeckel, a great admirer of Darwin and an eager popularizer of Darwin's theory. From the limited view of cells that 19th century microscopes provided, Haeckel believed that a cell was a "simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon," 2 not much different from a piece of microscopic Jello. Thus it seemed to Haeckel that such simple life could easily be produced from inanimate material. In 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of Species, an exploratory vessel, H.M.S. Cyclops, dredged up some curious looking mud from the sea bottom. Eventually Haeckel came to observe the mud and thought that it closely resembled some cells he had seen under a microscope. Excitedly he brought this to the attention of Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's great friend and defender. Huxley, too, became convinced that it was Urschleim (that is, protoplasm), the progenitor of life itself, and Huxley named the mud Bathybius Haeckelii after the eminent proponent of abiogenesis.
The mud failed to grow. In later years, with the development of new biochemical techniques and improved microscopes, the complexity of the cell was revealed. The "simple lumps" were shown to contain thousands of different types of organic molecules, proteins, and nucleic acids, many discrete subcellular structures, specialized compartments for specialized processes, and an extremely complicated architecture. Looking back from the perspective of our time, the episode of Bathybius Haeckelii seems silly or downright embarrassing, but it shouldn't. Haeckel and Huxley were behaving naturally, like Calvin: since they were unaware of the complexity of cells, they found it easy to believe that cells could originate from simple mud.
Throughout history there have been many other examples, similar to that of Haeckel, Huxley and the cell, where a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle was beyond the understanding of the age. In science there is even a whimsical term for a machine or structure or process that does something, but the actual mechanism by which it accomplishes its task is unknown: it is called a 'black box.' In Darwin's time all of biology was a black box: not only the cell, or the eye, or digestion, or immunity, but every biological structure and function because, ultimately, no one could explain how biological processes occurred.
Ernst Mayr, the prominent biologist, historian, and guiding force behind the neo-Darwinian synthesis, has pointed out that 3:
Any scientific revolution has to accept all sorts of black boxes, for if one had to wait until all black boxes are opened, one would never have any conceptual advances.
That is true. But in earlier days when black boxes were finally opened science, and sometimes the whole world, appeared to change. Biology has progressed tremendously due to the model that Darwin put forth. But the black boxes Darwin accepted are now being opened, and our view of the world is again being shaken.
Proteins
In order to understand the molecular basis of life it is necessary to understand how things called "proteins" work. Although most people think of protein" as something you eat, one of the major food groups, when they reside in the body of an uneaten animal or plant proteins serve a different purpose. Proteins are the machinery of living tissue that builds the structures and carries out the chemical reactions necessary for life. For example, the first of many steps necessary for the conversion of sugar to biologically-usable forms of energy is carried out by a protein called hexokinase. Skin is made in large measure of a protein called collagen. When light impinges on your retina it interacts first with a protein called rhodopsin. As can be seen even by this limited number of examples proteins carry out amazingly diverse functions. However, in general a given protein can perform only one or a few functions: rhodopsin cannot form skin and collagen cannot interact usefully with light. Therefore a typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different types of proteins to perform the many tasks necessary for life, much like a carpenter's workshop might contain many different kinds of tools for various carpentry work.
What do these versatile tools look like? The basic structure of proteins is quite simple: they are formed by hooking together in a chain discrete subunits called amino acids. Although the protein chain can consist of anywhere from about 50 to about 1,000 amino acid links, each position can only contain one of twenty different amino acids. In this way they are much like words: words can come in various lengths but they are made up from a discrete set of 26 letters. Now, a protein in a cell does not float around like a floppy chain; rather, it folds up into a very precise structure which can be quite different for different types of proteins. When all is said and done two different amino sequences--two different proteins--can be folded to structures as specific as and different from each other as a three-eighths inch wrench and a jigsaw. And like the household tools, if the shape of the proteins is significantly warped then they fail to do their jobs.
The Eyesight of Man
In general, biological processes on the molecular level are performed by networks of proteins, each member of which carries out a particular task in a chain.
Let us return to the question, how do we see? Although to Darwin the primary event of vision was a black box, through the efforts of many biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand. 4 When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.
The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previouslyadded hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.
To Explain Life
Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton's theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.
"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated," said Darwin in the 19th century. But both phenomena have attracted the interest of modern biochemistry. The story of the slow paralysis of research on life's origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of originoflife studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. 5
The purpose of this paper is to show that the same problems which beset origin-of-life research also bedevil efforts to show how virtually any complex biochemical system came about. Biochemistry has revealed a molecular world which stoutly resists explanation by the same theory that has long been applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's black boxes--the origin of life or the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems--has been accounted for by his theory.
Irreducible Complexity
In The Origin of Species Darwin stated 6:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.
Consider the humble mousetrap (Figure 1). The mousetraps that my family uses in our home to deal with unwelcome rodents consist of a number of parts. There are: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and (5) a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch. There are also assorted staples and screws to hold the system together.
Figure 1. A household mousetrap. The working parts of the trap are labeled. If any of the parts are missing the trap does not function.
If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled.
Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex. Thus, irreducibly complex systems exist.
Molecular Machines
Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are.
Earlier we discussed proteins. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. 7
Figure 2a.[size=undefined] Animation of a Cilium[/size]
Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell's surface or to "row" single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.
But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2a and b). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.
Figure 2b. Schematic drawing of part of a cilium. The power stroke of the motor protein, dynein, attached to one microtubule, against subfiber B of a neighboring microtubule causes the fibers to slide past each other. The flexible linker protein, nexin, converts the sliding motion to a bending motion.
Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.
What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.
The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.
The Study of "Molecular Evolution"
Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field. In a recent issue of JME there were published eleven articles; of these, all eleven were concerned simply with the analysis of protein or DNA sequences. None of the papers discussed detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
Sequence comparisons overwhelmingly dominate the literature of molecular evolution. But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked. Thus in this area science is mute. This means that when we infer that complex biochemical systems were designed, we are contradicting no experimental result, we are in conflict with no theoretical study. No experiments needs to be questioned, but the interpretation of all experiments must now be reexamined, just as the results of experiments that were consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe had to be reinterpreted when the waveparticle duality of matter was discerned.
Conclusion
It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion 8:
Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single windingup at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.
Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.
In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.
It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting ofthe C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University.
References
- Darwin, Charles (1872) Origin of Species 6th ed (1988), p.151, New York University Press, New York.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Farley, John (1979) The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin, 2nd ed, p.73, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Mayr, Ernst (1991) One Long Argument, p. 146, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Devlin, Thomas M. (1992) Textbook of Biochemistry, pp.938954, WileyLiss, New York.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- University of Washington rhetorician John Angus Campbell has observed that "huge edifices of ideas such as positivism never really die. Thinking people gradually abandon them and even ridicule them among themselves, but keep the persuasively useful parts to scare away the uninformed." "The Comic Frame and the Rhetoric of Science: Epistemology and Ethics in Darwin's Origin," Rhetoric Society Quarterly 24, pp.2750 (1994). This certainly applies to the way the scientific community handles questions on the origin of life.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Darwin, p.154.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Voet, D. & Voet, J.G. (1990) Biochemistry, pp.11321139, John Wiley & Sons, New York.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
- Cited in Jaki, Stanley L. (1980) Cosmos and Creator, pp.56, Gateway Editions, Chicago.[size=undefined]return to text[/size]
Mike Behe received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Drexel University in 1974 and the Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. After doing postdoctoral work at the National institutes of Health he became assistant professor of Chemistry at the City University of New York/Queens College. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA, where he is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences. Mike is married to the former Celeste LaTassa. They are members of St. Theresa Parish in Hellertown, PA, where they are raising their six children: Grace, age 10; Benedict, 9; Clare, 7; Leo, 5; Rose, 3; and Vincent, 1. Look for Dr. Behe's new book published by the Free Press, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
Copyright ©1997 Michael Behe. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 9.24.96
[size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined][size=undefined] [/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Re: Evolucija ili Kreacija
by Michael1 11/5/2014, 08:30
M. Behe Blog:
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/
_________________
Fide, sed cui, vide!
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Michael1-
Posts : 1933
2014-04-23
Lokacija: : Burgenland
Page 23 of 50 • 1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 36 ... 50
Similar topics» Evolucija ili Kreacija
» UN - evolucija svijesti
» Zemlja je ipak centar svijeta, a kreacija univerzuma, jedino ispravno ucenje............
» Evolucija jede svoju djecu
» Kent Hovind: 'Evolucija je najgluplja religija u povijesti!
» UN - evolucija svijesti
» Zemlja je ipak centar svijeta, a kreacija univerzuma, jedino ispravno ucenje............
» Evolucija jede svoju djecu
» Kent Hovind: 'Evolucija je najgluplja religija u povijesti!
ex-iskon-pleme :: Društvo :: Religija
Page 23 of 50
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum