Signature in the Cell

[Hal P]

Every week, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk is a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, where he has taught since 1988. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

No.

The recent book, Signature in the Cell , by ID movement leader Stephen C. Meyer, illustrates why.

Meyer holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge and is an expert in the philosophy of science. Admittedly, I am only an amateur in his area of expertise, but there were times as I was reading his book, when I was enthralled by the highly articulate explanation of how the tools of scientific logic enable us to become quite certain about the cause of natural events in the distant past. Similarly, his discussion of attempts to meaningfully define science was outstanding. He showed how the term has taken on new meaning based on practice. Today, as it is carried out by almost all practitioners, science has become synonymous with methodological naturalism. Meyer may have been overly optimistic when he wrote,

[OneLight]

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

No.

Then, who do you think this mind is? Where does it place you then? Have you read the book itself?

[Rick-Parker]

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

No.

So what? Tell it to God!

[MorningGlory]

This book review was actually not written by Hal P.; it's from the BioLogos site. (But Hal didn't claim to have written it, just to be clear). I can't find the author's name on their site either.

[OneLight]

I heard an interview with him yesterday. It was very interesting. He states that there is a lot of people coming our against his book lately, being called by a certain group (I can't remember the name) to give negative reports to his work.

[spiritman]

Just to be clear on the issue, I'm not an I.D proponent, I'm a creationist, as far as I'm concerned I.D er's walk around like they are still looking for answers on who created everything, Our Bible is quite clear on that. But I have a question for Hal P, if he would kind enough to answer me.

I want to make sure, that I'm not misunderstanding him on the point about this statement in the Book:

Gerald Joyce and Tracey Lincoln published an article in Science in which they demonstrated that evolved-RNA can take on a second function, the all-important replication activity. In just 30 hours their collection of RNA molecules had grown 100 million times bigger through a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules. So another dead-end pronouncement by Meyer was breached even while the book was in press

.

Are you saying here or is the author saying here, that because of the replication process, that it is possible, that the RNA can self replicate so than based on this conclusion, There was no creator needed to produce the RNA, and everything just took off from there, and sha zam we are where we are 3.5 billion years later, is this the point the above statement is attempting to make Hal P.?

[spiritman]

Just to be clear on the issue, I'm not an I.D proponent, I'm a creationist, as far as I'm concerned I.D er's walk around like they are still looking for answers on who created everything, Our Bible is quite clear on that. But I have a question for Hal P, if he would kind enough to answer me.

I want to make sure, that I'm not misunderstanding him on the point about this statement in the Book:

Gerald Joyce and Tracey Lincoln published an article in Science in which they demonstrated that evolved-RNA can take on a second function, the all-important replication activity. In just 30 hours their collection of RNA molecules had grown 100 million times bigger through a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules. So another dead-end pronouncement by Meyer was breached even while the book was in press

.

Are you saying here or is the author saying here, that because of the replication process, that it is possible, that the RNA can self replicate so than based on this conclusion, There was no creator needed to produce the RNA, and everything just took off from there, and sha zam we are where we are 3.5 billion years later, is this the point the above statement is attempting to make Hal P.?

Hal P. Luker, Your silence is deafening. I can't read the article from your link myself, because you have to be a paying member, and since one or both of you have seem to have read the article, why not enlighten me?. or should I just stack this up on the HOG WASH self?

[spiritman]

I'm somewhat baffled by your tone, no I haven't read Joyce's article (I don't have a subscription) nor have I or Hal suggest to have read that particular article. It was mentioned by a third party in an article Hal P posted. If you'd like to learn more about the experiment it refers to you can read the abstract here, or listen to an interview about it here

I'm angry with you because you didn't send me a Christmas greeting like I did you. Just kidding. actually I'm typing and don't really have a tone.

The author is saying that Meyer's characterization of abiogenesis research as at "a dead end" is wrong as this, and other, exciting studies have shown

I'm not sure how this article dismisses anything that Meyer's has said; first off I've not read the Meyer's article you're refering too. But I would like to bring up some points concerning Dr Joyces, and Greenfield's conclusions.

1. in the Begining of the Article Greenfield states that 4 Billion years ago, some chemicals came together and copied themselves. and these chemicals came together, and made something which copied itself and evolved. Greenfield, and Dr Joyce came to this conclusion after putting some RNA in a test tube, in a controlled environment, and The RNA began to copy itself over and over, and then when they gave the right parts to put together, sometimes it would grab one of the new parts and would create something different.

Ok my response:

1. They have not found anything outside the lab that does this. It's in a controlled environment.

2. Greenfield had to give these RNA's the parts needed to make a new system. (sound familar) perhaps a creator?

3. The RNA's only used the parts they had to make the new system.(micro Evolution) information just didn't pop out of thin air.(macro-evolution)

And these people expect intelligent indivduals to take them seriously.

sorry lurker I'm not convinced..

[spiritman]

I'm not sure how this article dismisses anything that Meyer's has said; first off I've not read the Meyer's article you're refering too. But I would like to bring up some points concerning Dr Joyces, and Greenfield's conclusions.

1. in the Begining of the Article Greenfield states that 4 Billion years ago, some chemicals came together and copied themselves. and these chemicals came together, and made something which copied itself and evolved. Greenfield, and Dr Joyce came to this conclusion after putting some RNA in a test tube, in a controlled environment, and The RNA began to copy itself over and over, and then when they gave the right parts to put together, sometimes it would grab one of the new parts and would create something different.

Ok my response:

1. They have not found anything outside the lab that does this. It's in a controlled environment.

2. Greenfield had to give these RNA's the parts needed to make a new system. (sound familar) perhaps a creator?

3. The RNA's only used the parts they had to make the new system.(micro Evolution) information just didn't pop out of thin air.(macro-evolution)

And these people expect intelligent indivduals to take them seriously.

sorry lurker I'm not convinced..

I think you're a little confused about what this experiment claims to show, it was not offered as proof of abiogenesis. In fact this was explicitly stated several times in the interview I linked you to. Furthermore, the researchers involved did not conclude that chemicals came together and copied themselves 4 billion years ago to start all life on earth based on this experiment - that is simply the working hypothesis put forward by the theory of abiogenesis that they were trying to test using this experiment to see if it was possible for simple chemicals to come together and self-replicate with variation. That ability is something that people like Meyers claim is impossible, yet they were able to observe it happening. Does this prove abiogenesis? No, of course not. Does it provide evidence that indicates abiogenesis is possible? Perhaps. Again, the point Meyers made in his book that research into abiogenesis was at a "dead end" is what the author of this review is criticizing and what this experiment demonstrates as false.

Lurker

Well, as long as you have a scientist standing over the thing feeding it the New Parts it needs, if you ask me this experiment proves, that any new information, or in this case New Parts, have to be given by an intelligent outside being. It seems to me the more experiments evolutionist perform, the more it proves creationism.