« Dawkins' Blind Faith Is Irrational | Main | Word Study on Repentance »

August 30, 2009

Comments

It's worth noting that it has been possible to image individual atoms since 1981. This new technique makes it possible to apply the existing technology to organic molecules.

There has also arisen a more irreducibly complex mousetrap. Edwin Way Teale, in his nature travel book Springtime in Britain, describes having found a milk bottle lying on its side that had trapped a small mammal. He cites some studies made in Britain of similar cases of milk bottles acting as animal traps.

I don't want to be picky, but this is not a photograph.

There are a couple of interesting reasons to care about the distinction.

The first is linquistic, 'photo' refers to light and the AFM doesn't use light.

The second (which comes out of the first) is that such a photo - made with light - is impossible in principle.

The smallest thing a light microscope can resolve is limited by the wavelength of light itself and is about 0.2 micrometers.

This is 1400 times bigger than the 0.14 nanometers between the carbons in the image.

The image is a graphical representation of data collected with the instrument electronically. From the article Melinda links, it sounds like they are using 'dynamic mode' which is explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscope

Darwin's Black Box is the title of a work of fiction by Michael Behe.

RonH

Hi Johnnie

If you think that (Milk bottle) is an example of a irreducibly complex system, you should reread the book.

Todd

Todd: According to Wikipedia:

'The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as:

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. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)'

In this case,the several interacting parts are

1. a shiny, possibly reflective bottom that will attract the animal

2. an opening (the mouth) into which the animal's hind legs have to leave the ground in entering

3. a smooth slope between the side of the bottle (serving as a floor) and the mouth up which the animal cannot get traction

Looks like irreducible complexity to me.

Read the book!

What other part of the book do I have to read to you?

A fabulous website that I find while surfing the net was this one:

progettocosmo.altervista.org

This website is dedicated to waking up people about creationism in both English and Italian, it has all sorts of arguments just lined up against evolution and theistic evolution. please look it up and spread the word, thank you and God bless you all.


Thomas,
Pecatto!

Hanno commesso un grand'errore traducendo questa buffonata in italiano!

RonH

Ron, you can request English by getting the English translation on the side :) enjoy the site.

I could look at the site as a way to study Italian, but given their attitude toward science I wouldn't trust it for that either.

RonH

Oh I see well it seems as though you speak pretty good Italian to begin with :) well what are your views on science? If you have any questions about creationism, str.org and the other site are perfect for you.

Thomas,

There is nothing special about science. If you want to know what is on the other side of the mountain go and look. Science is no more than that.

In hypothesizing, be profligate. In inquiry, budget your resources. In drawing conclusions, play the arch conservative.

Beware of assumptions, extrapolations, philosophy. Cherish multiple lines of evidence.

RonH

True, we may have come to different scientific conclusions but it seems as if we both believe in the same philosophy, which is to follow the argument where it leads. And that is very good.

Hey RonH, and do you know Italian? Because I noticed at first you responded to me in Italian.

Thomas,
The quality of the arguments/evidence - all that I've heard - people use to support ID pretty low. Name one and I'll demonstrate.

The quality if my Italian is pretty low too.

RonH

Well RonH why don't you go to Gregory Koukl, this is a perfect website for naming ID arguments, check this one out, just type it in the search box: Stand to Reason: Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science

Thomas,

I tried putting your title in the search box and it didn't turn up an article of that name, but on the topic of intelligent design I have this question (maybe it's already been dealt with somewhere).

When we try to infer intelligent design from complexity are we looking at the wrong thing? Consider the classic watch in the heath argument (a watch is so unheathen--pun intended--you would not expect it in a heath, so it must have been brought there). Consider a different angle. A watch usually has the name of its maker on its face. The name has nothing to do with the function or complexity of the watch. How could be identify the name of God stamped on his creation? Paul in Romans 1 says that God is clearly seen in his creation. Maybe in his day they knew where to look, maybe now we don't.

Yamaha stamps their motorcyles with their logo, which is three tuning forks intertwined. That same logo is also found on some fine pianos. It turns out that Yamaha is also their maker. Their metal-alloy expertise in piano wire led to their doing the motorcyle thing.

So what is God's "logo"?

Stand to Reason: Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science
It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy. ...
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494

works for me

monkfoobar

Thanks for the URL for the cite.

The nub of Greg's argument in the article is

"It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories--scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things--are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God."

If you were to take out the word "Charles Darwin's" and put in "Einstein's" or "Faraday's" or "Pasteur's" with the appropriate description of that scientist's contribution to theory, would this quote make sense?

The last clause is a non-sequitur. It would make sense if it was written "mother nature without, or after, or as a consequence of the initial works of, or associated with the continual works of, father God."

Thomas,

I asked for an argument/evidence supporting ID.

That article doesn't even mention ID.

RonH

Well RonH, it does not need to mention ID to be about it, if the article is attempting to refute evolution then it is obviously making an argument for creation or intelligent design.

The comments to this entry are closed.