The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

The Designer Apparently Designs Like Humans Do

Posted by Mats on 09/05/2009

Here at UD we’ve heard over and over again that unless we “know” who the Designer is, then we can’t infer design. For example, if we were to argue that we’ve never seen the ancient Native Americans who fashioned arrowheads from stone, yet we are able to infer design in arrowheads nonetheless, the Darwinian side would respond saying, “Yes, but that’s because the Native Americans are humans like ourselves.”

PhysOrg.com has an article about the microRNA, miR-7, which has been found to regulate a network which brings about uniformity among humans. The article is interesting in itself, but most interesting is this comment by one of the lead authors, Richard W. Carthew:

When something is changed, say the genetic sequence of a molecule or the temperature of the organism, the network responds to compensate for the change and keep things intact. . . . This design is similar to the principle that engineers use to design safety features into products.”

Unless some Darwinist can mount some kind of sensible objection, then I guess we here at UD can safely, and reasonably, conclude that whoever the Designer is, he ‘designs’ like human engineers do. Thusly, the opposite is true: if we find human engineering-like design in biological systems, then we can conclude that we have encountered the/a Designer. And Darwinists can kindly drop this type of argument from their repetoire.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “The Designer Apparently Designs Like Humans Do”

  1. What? The argument here is humans design is similar to the way microRNAs work?

    When you talk about research into miRNAs, you’re addressing concepts on the bleeding edge of molecular biology. To make any generalisation from a single paper on one miRNA is absurd. Relatively few miRNA/pathway interactions have been experimentally verified and we simply do not yet understand enough about them to know much detail about their roles in cells or organisms.

    One theory is miRNAs can act as buffers for gene expression, as supported by the paper mentioned. However, to say this proves a designer due to the fact humans are capable of designing buffered systems is a non-sequitur of epic proportions.

    Intelligence can develop stable systems, but it does not follow that a stable system can only be developed by intelligence.

    Your/this argument boils down to stability = design. Are you not aware stability is required for evolution?

    On a side note, if I was an engineer, I’d be insulted if you claimed my design by intelligence is as blind as biological “design”.

    I’m also willing to bet that despite your “The article is interesting in itself…” comment, you haven’t actually read it, have you?

  2. Mats said

    First of all, the article is not mine. I think I left a link of the source.

    Intelligence can develop stable systems, but it does not follow that a stable system can only be developed by intelligence

    It is up to you darwinists to find a non-inteligent force which has the ability to create functional systems like the ones we see in living beings. Untill then, we’ll scientific infer inteligent causation as the best explination we have so far.

    On a side note, if I was an engineer, I’d be insulted if you claimed my design by intelligence is as blind as biological “design”.

    You must be diferent from every other human being on this planet who sees wonderful design in the living world. It is not uncommon for scientists solve engeneering problems learning from what God has made.

  3. You say “It is up to you darwinists to find a non-inteligent force which has the ability to create functional systems…” (sic). The reply to that is evolution, which you deny because it does not suit your faith.

    I could then continue by making the obvious argument that evolution is entirely consistent with all current scientific evidence, whereas the idea of intelligent design is not consistent and logically flawed. But that would be a waste of time, as your opinion is not a based on the evidence, but exists in support of your agenda. Essentially, evidence can’t convince you, because your view is not affected by or based on it.

    “…wonderful design in the living world…” is a rather naive concept. Correct, the living world works, but it’s certainly not perfect. If there was an intelligent designer, they were rather short sighted.
    For example, light has to pass through blood vessels in your eye to reach a retina that contains a blind spot near the middle of your vision. Intelligently designed? If so, then it’s done badly.
    Conversely, where are all the wheeled animals? Surely we’re all due a content patch?

  4. Mats said

    You say “It is up to you darwinists to find a non-inteligent force which has the ability to create functional systems…” (sic). The reply to that is evolution, which you deny because it does not suit your faith.

    Typical.
    Now, if I ask you if any evolutionist has ever seen “evolution” creating the type of systems we see in the living world, you’ll say “Oh…but that takes time, and mutations, bla bla bla yadda yadda yadda”… Total nonsense.

    For example, light has to pass through blood vessels in your eye to reach a retina that contains a blind spot near the middle of your vision. Intelligently designed? If so, then it’s done badly

    Oh, Lord Jesus, please forgive this man for he doesn’t know Biology.
    Tell me, if the eye is so “poorly designed”; how come scientists are trying to copy it’s functionality?

  5. An example would be nice.. in what way are scientists trying to copy the functionality of an eye?

    As for
    “Now, if I ask you if any evolutionist has ever seen “evolution” creating the type of systems we see in the living world, you’ll say “Oh…but that takes time, and mutations, bla bla bla yadda yadda yadda”… Total nonsense.”
    – that’s not even a coherent argument. I don’t like to make personal statements, but if it sounds like “yadda yadda” to you then it sounds to me like you don’t understand it. How can you argue against something that you don’t understand?

    The simplest definition of evolution is “change over time”. So, yes, time is required. The timescale can vary, on the scale of animals like us we’re talking long long times that we can’t easily comprehend with our brains (design flaw or example of non-beneficial traits not being selected for?).

    However, some evolution does occur at a rate high enough that we can watch it. The HIV virus or MRSA becoming resistant to drugs for example. Or one you may have heard about recently – Swine flu.
    You could argue here that these are just variations within species, but that argument is fatally flawed as the tree of life is a continuum, and the designation of species is certainly not black and white.

  6. Mats said

    in what way are scientists trying to copy the functionality of an eye?

    Nature Inspires Design of New Eyes
    One has to wonder why would scientists try to copy something which is “poorly designed”, as many atheists believe.

    The simplest definition of evolution is “change over time”. So, yes, time is required

    Like I predicted, you hide the unability of natural forces to generate the biological systems behind the cloak of time.
    For you, it’s not that nature can’t do it,but only that we haven’t the time to watch the whole process.
    Makes “sense”, I guess.

  7. Would you like to expand on why you believe nature is not capable of generating biological systems, given sufficient time? It’s easy to say it can’t, but back up the claim?
    There’s plenty of evidence to say it can, so lets see your evidence to say it can’t.

    As for eyes, if human eyes were rationally designed by an intelligent entity, why do the lenses deteriorate over time? Why can my left eye not focus all the planes of light at the same time? Why do cataracts form?

    I’m not saying they’d have to be perfect for them to be designed – but to claim they are perfect, or even just well designed, as they are is frankly silly. Why doesn’t God update them?

  8. Mats said

    Would you like to expand on why you believe nature is not capable of generating biological systems, given sufficient time?

    No evidence.

    As for eyes, if human eyes were rationally designed by an intelligent entity, why do the lenses deteriorate over time? Why can my left eye not focus all the planes of light at the same time? Why do cataracts form?

    The fact that things wear down it’s not evidence that they were not designed. Cars wear down. Computers wear down. Cell phones wear down. All of them have been inteligently designed.

    “I’m not saying they’d have to be perfect for them to be designed – but to claim they are perfect, or even just well designed, as they are is frankly silly”

    Scientists who try to copy the design in the eye seem to think that it is well designed. But I guess you know more than they do.

    Why doesn’t God update them?

    He will update them in the New Heavens and in the New Earth HE will create. But remember: only those whose names are found in the Lamb’s Book of Life will have their biostructure updated. All the others who think that the living world created itself will be tossed into the lake of fire, where they will, then, realize the mistake they have made.

    On which side you want to be? Think about your life, and all the things you know you did wrong. If we were to stand before a Holy God, with the memory of all the lies, adulteries and thefts we have done, where would we go, heaven or hell?
    Thankfuly God has prepared a Firm Way for us to be saved, and His Name is Lord Jesus Christ.
    I made my decision to reconize my sins some years back, so when I die, I will be with God forever, with updated eyes and updated body.

    What about you?

  9. Me? Uhh… I grew up. I learned to question the world around me, critically evaluate evidence and the opinions of others, and come to my own conclusions. I can think for myself, which is actually surprisingly enlightening.

    If I ever had to stand before a God and be judged, I think it’s rather more likely he will reward those who applied the brains he gave them.
    But if he’s the type that rewards bleating like sheep, then I think I will enjoy the company and conversation down in hell.

  10. Mats said

    Me? Uhh… I grew up. I learned to question the world around me, critically evaluate evidence and the opinions of others, and come to my own conclusions.

    You notice the complexity in living systems, you notice the natural inclination ALL makind has for the spiritual realm, you notice how hard it is to silence the voice of conscience in us, and you still think that *nothing* is beyond what the eyes can see?

    Tell me honestly, do’t you have moments where a quiet voice sounds the alram in you saying “You really should take a closer look at what’s going on”? Eternity is a long time to be joking around. ARe you sure you want to gamble like that?

    I can think for myself, which is actually surprisingly enlightening.

    That makes two of us. Actually, everyone can think for himself.

    If I ever had to stand before a God and be judged, I think it’s rather more likely he will reward those who applied the brains he gave them.

    But rejecting the multitude of evidences God has suplied to us is not using out brains. Its foolishness.

    But if he’s the type that rewards bleating like sheep, then I think I will enjoy the company and conversation down in hell

    The only company people have in hell is demons torturing them. Never again will you enjoy having a nice chat with a fellow human. All you experience is pain and suffering and lonelyness forever.

    Are you sure you want that….?

    Think about the things you know you did wrong. Have you ever lied? So have I. Have you ever stolen something from anyone? So have I. Have you ever had impure thoughts? Me too.

    You know that those things are wrong, right?

  11. I am taking a look at what’s going on – using the only method that has any power to reveal information about the universe – Science.

    You flatter yourself with the implication yours is an all encompassing philosophy with relevance to everyone. Your story of hell means nothing to me, for example.

  12. Mats said

    I am taking a look at what’s going on – using the only method that has any power to reveal information about the universe – Science.

    You not only reject the observatiopns of science when it comes to the unability of random forces to generate the kind of systems present in the living world, but you also cannot account for the activity of science. If the universe is the result of random forces, how come it operates according to rational laws? The only explination that makes sense is that the universe is a rational place because it was created by a Rational Creator, just like a computer operates rattionaly because it is the result of rational minds.

    YOu reject the findings of science, and you reject the Fundation of science (God).
    My friend, you choose going to hell out of rebellion and not out of “science”. You know that God exists, and you know about His Just Judgment, but even so, you walk in the “vanity of your mind” convincing yourself that you are being “rational” by rejecting Intelligent Causation behind the universe.

    The moral law within your heart says otherwise. The moral law you have in yourself tells you that lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, and you (and I) have done those things. What makes you think that such deeds won’t have a consequence?

    Friend, I tell you honestly, there is a literal hell where those who die rejecting Christ wlll go. You know that you deserve hell because of the things you have done.

    Why do you reject what you know it’s true?

  13. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never committed adultery!

    As for the “rational universe” – that’s an arrogantly human judgement. Humans have evolved to deal with the environment they occupy and experience. Outside of this environment, by a few orders of magnitude in either direction, the human brain struggles to deal with the information presented. Further away the world really is hard for us to comprehend at all. Have you ever looked into quantum mechanics, or physics on the scale of light years? We don’t yet know our limits of understanding, as science is still progressing.

    The utterly minuscule dot in space-time humans occupy is not representative of the entire universe, how it came to be, or where it’s going. Yet you think the “rationality” you see outside your window is all encompassing and leap to grand conclusions about a God that created your little world.

    I’m not choosing to go to hell by the way, it’s a non-issue.

  14. Mats said

    I don’t know about you, but I’ve never committed adultery!

    You have never looked at a woman in the street lustfully?
    What about lying, have ever lied? Have you ever stolen something? Have you ever coveted something that didn’t belong to you? Would you consider that wrong or good?

  15. In this instance I consider “wrong or good” a false dichotomy. I am going to look outside the box and select option three, which says the question itself is a diversion from the points you had no comeback too.

  16. Mats said

    Which points I “had no comeback too” ?

  17. Mats said

    By the way, you did not say if you have ever lied or not’

  18. Ok, I’ll humour you – yes, of course I have lied. But no, morality does not prove God exists.

  19. Mats said

    Actually, the universal human perception that there are things that are absolutly wrong (as lying, stealing, raping, and many other things) points to a Source that transcends mear human existence.
    I am not trying to act hollier than thou, by the way. I probably have done the same or worse things that you have done. My point is, why do people think that our lies, cheatings, stealings, adulteries, and fornication will have no consequence in the future?
    There is a rule in science that says something like this: for every event there is an effect (something like that). If this happens in the material world, why do you think it won’t happen in other domains of human existence?
    by the Grace of God, I have been translated into the kingdom ofthe Son of God, If I die today, I wo’t go to hell. Not that I don’t deserve it. I do deserve it, but since I have been adopted into GOd’s Family (by faith in Jesus Christ), God looks at me Through the Righgteoussness of Christ.

    My friend, if you die in the situation you are right now, where will you go?

  20. The morgue.

    I assume your either referring to “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, describing Newton’s third law of motion, or more likely, causality (“cause and effect”). Neither is relevant here though.

    As for moral absolutes, there are none. Consider my point above about how insignificant we are in the universe, and how human-centric it is to purport that our morality is ubiquitous. It’s also wrong to say the “…human perception that there are things that are absolutely wrong…” is universal, because no two humans will have the same moral views.

    Evolution can account for morality and altruism.

  21. Mats said

    My friend, if you die in the situation you are right now, where will you go?

    The morgue.

    You think? So all the things that you know you have done wrong will have no consequence?
    Human existence years for justice, but atheists believe that life itself has no justice.

    As for moral absolutes, there are none.

    So perhaps the holocaust was a good thing? Or was the holocaust absolutly wrong?

    Consider my point above about how insignificant we are in the universe, and how human-centric it is to purport that our morality is ubiquitous.

    Size doesn’t determine morality.

    It’s also wrong to say the “…human perception that there are things that are absolutely wrong…” is universal, because no two humans will have the same moral views.

    I am not saying that everyone professes that all morality is valid. I am saying that everyone KNOWS that some things are wrong and some things are right. Think of this: do you know of any culture in which telling the truth is morality wrong?

    Evolution can account for morality and altruism.

    Yes, evolution can account for altruism and selfishness, fidelity and infidelity, love and hate, fatness and thinness, complexity and simplicity. Evolution can explain… everything.

    Evolution is all and in all.

  22. I’m not an anthropologist, so I don’t know of any culture where telling the truth is considered morally wrong, but it seems unlikely. However, saying people “KNOW” the difference between wrong and right – Who’s wrong and right? YOUR wrong and right? What are your views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or abortion? All strong and divisive moral issues, certainly with no consensus in our Western world… and what about outside that?

    Morality is certainly not universal. It is a required aspect of human society, but that by no means makes it a necessity. It certainly has nothing to do with microRNAs.

  23. Mats said

    I’m not an anthropologist, so I don’t know of any culture where telling the truth is considered morally wrong, but it seems unlikely.

    Why do you think that there are no cultures in which telling the truth is considered morally wrong? Where does that come from?

    However, saying people “KNOW” the difference between wrong and right – Who’s wrong and right? YOUR wrong and right? What are your views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or abortion?

    What about klilling people because of their race, is that right wrong, or morality neutral?

    Morality is certainly not universal. It is a required aspect of human society, but that by no means makes it a necessity.

    Sorry, but morality is universal. All humans have a moral law within them. There are disagreements in some points, but all humans assume that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. I have never found a human being who denies the existence of morality.
    You dind’t answer my question: was the holocaust something wrong or something boog?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: