Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, November 19, 2010

"It's Life, All the Way Down"

-
The hopeful thing is that molecular biologists today — slowly but surely, and perhaps despite themselves — are increasingly being driven to enlarge their understanding through a reckoning with genetic contexts. As a result, they are writing “finis” to the misbegotten hope for a non-­lifelike foundation of life, even if the fact hasn’t yet been widely announced.

It is, I think, time for the announcement.

There is a frequently retold story about a little old lady who claims, after hearing a scientific lecture, that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise. When asked what the turtle is standing on, she invokes a second turtle. And when the inevitable follow-up question comes, she replies, “You’re very clever, young man, but you can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.”

As a metaphor for the scientific understanding of biology, the story is marvelously truthful. In the study of organisms, “It’s life all the way down.” (bold added)
From Getting Over the Code Delusion

It appears we are not the sum of our genes, ie our DNA does not make us who/ what we are. The observed levels of specified complexity, from top to bottom, scream of software control and therefor an intelligent design.

No Jacques Monod, we are not the result of mere accidents. There isn't any evidence for that and there isn't any way to test the premise. The theory of evolution's shit just happens mechanism is devoid of content.

The evidence for intelligent design is so overwhelming that long time atheist Anthony Flew couldn't deny it any longer. It is only a matter of time for the rest to either die off or pull their heads out of their asses. My bet is most would rather die first.

8 Comments:

  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Joe Jensen said…

    Please stop with the four letter words. You're the only ID proponent that does this, and it negates any points you may have made.
    Joe Jensen, Canada

     
  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Joe Jensen said…

    I'm a bio-med technician, amature inventor and share your first name. I'm also an ID defender, so it pains me that I take issue with your use of four letter words and insults. I was always proud that our side didn't resort to this when making points. you'll never persuade anybody doing this.
    You may not be receptive to this criticism, because it's painful to read it. Please note that the resistance you feel to conform to my wishes, are the same you generate in others whom you criticise.
    joe jensen, canada.

     
  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger Joe Jensen said…

    I may have posted my previous comment, more than once. I just got a google account and it wasn't clear if the previous postings went through. I appologize, if you have to be chastised more than once from me.
    Joe Jensen, Canada

     
  • At 8:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Joe Jensen from Canada!

    I appreciate your concern but could you please be a little more specific as to what four-letter words I can and can't use?

    I also appreciate your criticism, I am married so I am used to that. However rest assured that I am very comfortable with who I am and what I say. That is why I have this blog- to say what I want to say the way I want to say it.

    A "no-holds-barred" blog. I call 'em as I see 'em.

    Ya see in the end it isn't important that people listen to me or any points I make. What is important is that people get off their asses and actually start looking into things for themselves.

    You don't have to take my word for any of this but definitely don't take theirs- that is my message-> find out for yourself.

    All I ask is for people to do a little critical thinking- do you think this is all a mere accident? How would you know if it was?

    But thanks for dropping by, just remember that I have a wife, which means I get criticized and chastized pretty much on a daily basis.

    I am who I am...

     
  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger Joe Jensen said…

    Wow, that was quick, and I can't believe all of my posts went through. The google account thing, didn't give my any indication until I "activated my account". I then posted my last comment and thought that was all you were going to see.

    Just for the record, I completely agree with your point of view and engage often, many people of the stupidity of evolution.

    I used to be an evolutionist and frequently ridiculed any opposition, including members of my own family.

    I seen the light in 1996 and haven't looked back. I've been following this since and never seen an ID proponent use the word "shit" and "tard" against those towing the Evo line.

    I only offered my comment with the sincere wish to help the larger cause of the Intelligent design movement.

    The description of my work, first name etc. was to emphasize our commonality, in the hopes of persuading you.

    I'm calling you a friend anyway, because I seldom meet many ID defenders.
    Joe Jensen, Canada
    joe@redneckranch.com

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I didn't see any light, just the evidence, and that was back in the 70s. And the deeper I dig the more it is life all the way down, when it comes to biology.

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Joe G said:

    "No Jacques Monod, we are not the result of mere accidents. There isn't any evidence for that and there isn't any way to test the premise."

    If that's true Joe, then there's also no way to test the opposite premise (ID).

    The only way ID could be proven would be to produce the alleged designer and have that alleged designer prove that they can and did do the designing. Anything else is just non-scientific faith.

     
  • At 7:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No Jacques Monod, we are not the result of mere accidents. There isn't any evidence for that and there isn't any way to test the premise."

    TWT:
    If that's true Joe, then there's also no way to test the opposite premise (ID).

    Hey TWT. Thanks for stopping by.

    I disagree with what you said.

    ID is tested every time we investigate the cause of something.

    But if it's accidents all the way down then:

    If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

    I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

    It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
    --CS Lewis

    TWT:
    The only way ID could be proven would be to produce the alleged designer and have that alleged designer prove that they can and did do the designing.

    Except that ain't how SCIENCE works. I understand that is what scientifically illiterate people require, but science does not.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home