This episode of ID the Future is 17 minutes long. It’s the third in a series – here are parts one and two.
Details:
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin and Stephen Meyer finish up their talk with a discussion of why intelligent design presents the best explanation for the Cambrian explosion.
Special limited time offer: Save 43% and get 4 free digital books when you pre-order Darwin’s Doubt.
What sort of reasoning did Darwin use in The Origin of Species?
Can this method of “inference to the best explanation” be applied to the Cambrian explosion
The importance of appealing to causes that we have experienced ourselves
Example: explaining from an effect (volcanic ash) to a cause that his adequate (volcanic eruption)
We have experience of how volcanoes cause the ash, so we should infer based on what we know
In the case where the effect is information in biology, we see that naturalistic mechanisms are inadequate
But we know from our own experience that intelligent agents can generate information
Many people think that science must confine itself to materialistic explanations
If so, then it is possible miss out on the true explanation by ruling it out before looking at evidence
If you haven’t yet read Meyer’s first book, “Signature in the Cell”, you should probably grab that one. It’s the best book on intelligent design that’s out right now. It talks about the origin of the first living cell, surveying all naturalistic explanations for it, and concluding that the best explanation – the one most consistent with what we know now – is intelligent design.
The Origin of Life: The Great God Debate
Fuz Rana vs. Michael Ruse
Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question “Are natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity of the cell?” The debate will be moderated by Craig Hazen. Sponsored by The Well Christian Club at UCR, Come Reason Ministries, and Biola University.
Format of the debate:
Opening Arguments: 20 minutes each
1st Cross-Examination: 6 minutes each side
Rebuttals: 10 minutes each
2nd Cross-Examination: 6 minutes each side
Concluding Arguments: 5 minutes each
Q &A: 40 minutes (Questions can come from Twitter and SMS)
Michael Ruse was careful to note that he is not keen on saying design is not possible. Rather, his claim is that naturalism is the most plausible explanation for the origins of life.
Ruse’s argued that design is implausible. Specifically, he noted that if design is the hypothesis put forward, there are any number of ways that one might consider that hypothesis. Is the designer a natural being within the universe or a supernatural being like God? Is there only one designer, or was there a group of designers (and he notes that a group of designers seems more plausible because automobiles require many designers to bring them about)? Finally, he raised the issue of bad design choices. He asked why, if there were a “hands-on” designer, would that designer not grant immunity to HIV and the like.
Ruse also argued that one can fall into the fallacy of selective attention- if one focuses upon only one example in isolation, then one might come to a conclusion that certain laws/theories may not be correct. But placing these same problems in context shows that they can be explained against “the background of our knowledge.”
Finally, Ruse ended with a number of examples for how problems which were seemingly insoluble were explained by naturalistic means. He also argued that one of the popular arguments for design, the flagellum, has so many different varieties (and is sometimes found to be a vestigial organ), and so cannot be shown to be designed.
Fazale Rana Opening
The problems which must be accounted for within an origins of life model are numerous. One must account for self-replication, the emergence of metabolism, the formation of protocells, the synthesis of prebiotic materials, the formation of life’s building blocks, and more.
Rana then turned to some primary models used by researchers to explain origin of life (hereafter OOL). First, there was the replicator-first model, which was problematic because in order for a molecule to be a self-replicator, it must be a homopolymer. But the complexity of the chemical environment on early earth rendered the generation of a homopolymer on the early earth essentially impossible. Next, the metabolism-first model runs into problem due to the chemical networks which have to be in place for metabolism. But the mineral surfaces proposed for the catalytic systems for these proto-metabolic systems cannot serve as such; Leslie Orgel held that this would have to be a “near miracle” and Rana argues that it is virtually impossible. Finally, the membrane-first model requires different steps with exacting conditions such that the model is self-defeating.
Rana argued positively that OOL requires an intelligent agent in order to occur. The reason is because the only way that any of these models can be generated is through the work on OOL in a lab. Thus, they can only be shown to be proof-of-principle and the chemistry breaks down when applied to the early earth. The fact that information is found in the cell is another evidence Rana presented for design. The systems found in enzymes with DNA function as, effectively, Turing machines. Moreover, the way that DNA finds and eliminates mistakes is machine-like as well. The fact that the needed component for success in lab experiments was intelligence hinted, according to Rana, at positive evidence for design.
Finally, Rana argued that due to the “fundamental intractable problems” with naturalistic models for the OOL and the fact that the conditions needed for the OOL and the processes required to bring it about have only been demonstrated as in-principle possible with intelligent agents manipulating the process.
He’s got a summary of each of the speeches, and it rings true with what I saw when I watched the debate.
Last time, they discussed how the sudden origin of animal body plans requires an infusion of new information
Also, the sudden origin of animal forms is inexplicable naturalistically, because there are no transitional forms
New body plans require new genetic information
The Cambrian explosion involve a sudden increase of body plans, which means a sudden increase of information
For example, a new body plan requires dozens of new cell types
Each cell type will be composed of new proteins and enzymes
Proteins are composed of functional sequences of amino acids – genetic information
Can the neo-Darwinian mechanisms generate new functional sequences?
The problem with making functional sequences by chance: Product Rule
When calculating probabilities of forming a functional sequence, you multiply to calculate probabilities
A bike lock with 4 dials and 10 possibilities has 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000 possibilities
Each sequence is equally likely to get by random guesses
But it’s far more likely that any random attempt will NOT work
Getting one or two settings right has no value to opening the lock, and will not be saved for later attempts
There is no credit for partial success: you have to get the whole combination right the first time
In addition, there are other sources of information other than DNA that are required for new body plans
For example, there is information in cell membranes, cytoskeletons, etc. which is also needed
Neo-Darwinism can only work on mutating genes – even in the best case it would just give you new proteins
Neo-Darwinism cannot add information in non-genome areas, which are required for new animal forms
The information in these non-genome areas are required to arrange the proteins to make new body pans
Genetic inofrmation = information in the genome, Epigenetic information = information outside the genome
This problem of information outside the genome is called “the problem of the origin of form”
So those last few points are, I think, a sneak peek into the contents of the new “Darwin’s Doubt” book.
If you haven’t yet read Meyer’s first book, “Signature in the Cell”, you should probably grab that one. It’s the best book on intelligent design that’s out right now. It talks about the origin of the first living cell, surveying all naturalistic explanations for it, and concluding that the best explanation – the one most consistent with what we know now – is intelligent design.
WINTERY KNIGHT 