Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

Rich said: Put another way if non-coding DNA has an undiscovered function
then mainstream evolutionary science is OK, but if it is truly "junk" then
ID is toast.

I respond: No, arguments against evolution based on the functionality of
"junk" DNA would be toast. Many arguments that I'd classify as design / ID
/ "id" arguments would remain unaffected -- including Behe's various
arguments, as well as more subtle ones like SC Morris' teleological
convergence.

Rich said: All of this complexity stuff is to show that evolution couldn't
do it.

I respond: not exactly -- depending on whom you ask and depending on what
you mean by "evolution couldn't do it." Again, take an ID poster boy like
Behe -- his position is better characterized as "evolution can't do it *all,
*all by itself." Or again, take SC Morris: "evolution must be rigged."
Ultimately, take any EC who believes creation is contingent on God's will:
"nothing happens without God even if I can't demonstrate that empirically."

It seems to me you're arguing that if common descent is true, every possible
design / teleological argument must be false. I don't think that follows.

My parents told me a story this week about a couple they've been
discipling. The man was an atheist until recently. He had an epiphany in a
doctor's office while looking at a chart of the human eye while waiting for
the doctor -- he decided that this organ is too marvelous for God not to
have been involved in designing it. Shortly thereafter, he gave up his
atheism and accepted Christ.

Now, to the extent this man would try to make some specific argument about
the complexity of the eye, many of us here could probably debunk it and show
all sorts of transitional eyes. But regardless, it seems to me that this
man's moment of intuition was something real, and I have little doubt that
it was part of the Holy Spirit's prompting of him to faith. Whether or not
there's an evolutionary pathway for eyes, our aesthetic intuition that eyes
(and DNA) are the marvelous work of a creator has validity at some level --
just as we agree with the Psalmist that we are "fearfully and wonderfully *
made*" even if we can mostly explain the gradual, natural process of fetal
development. If we lose that in the zeal to debunk bad ID arguments, I
think we really lose something important.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rich, I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. The Matheson post
> > you refer to bashes Ross for a fallacious argument concerning junk DNA.
> > Ross was trying to show that the "junk DNA" argument against evolution isn't
> > so strong as it's portrayed to be because scientists were rapidly
> > discovering that junk DNA is functional; Matheson debunks that claim in one
> > of Ross' books.
>
>
> No I'm not. They are closely related. He talked about the C-value paradox
> and the paper I cited dealt with the G-value paradox (along with the C-value
> paradox) which is a FAR bigger problem for ID.
>
> I'll quote the relevant section:
>
> There are two intriguing paradoxes in molecular biology—the inconsistent
> > relationship between organismal
> > complexity and (1) cellular DNA content and (2) the number of
> > protein-coding genes—referred to as
> > the C-value and G-value paradoxes, respectively. The C-value paradox may
> > be largely explained by varying
> > ploidy. The G-value paradox is more problematic, as the extent of
> > protein coding sequence remains relatively
> > static over a wide range of developmental complexity.
>
>
> One reason why ID has to invoke the functionality of junk DNA is in part
> because of the G-value paradox but even here as Steve Matheson showed they
> hit the C-value paradox. Put another way if non-coding DNA has an
> undiscovered function then mainstream evolutionary science is OK, but if it
> is truly "junk" then ID is toast.
>
>
> >
> > But this doesn't address the question whether the complexity of genetic
> > code represents a sort of design language in general. If it's true that
> > simple organisms can have complex codes, and complex organisms can have
> > simple codes, it seems to me that this could *support *some ID arguments
> > based on complexity -- at least those that focus on some kinds of teleology
> > (e.g. S.C. Morris' convergence) or front loading. The bottom line is that
> > what we're calling "simple" code here remains mind-bendingly complex; it
> > takes super-computers full of information to unravel the genetic code of all
> > sorts of organisms. True, Matheson does a good job of shredding Ross'
> > efforts to explain junk DNA, but so what? Maybe I'm agreeing here with your
> > concluding observation about design arguments having more traction if they
> > would give up trying to deny common descent altogether -- then you could
> > talk quite a bit about the marvel of genetic information without getting
> > sidetracked trying to explain away junk DNA.
> >
> >
>
> Exactly. All of this complexity stuff is to show that evolution couldn't
> do it. I *really* hate how the language has been hijacked, so I am making
> up a new term. I am anti-AEIOUD. Anti-Evolutionary Intelligent but
> Otherwise Unspecified Design.
>
> P.S. Since I ran out of posts for the day so I want to correct a typo.
> It's eukaryote.
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
> King of the Typos
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.